DISSERTATION ■ — 



N THE 



CONTAINED IN 



DANIEL IX. 24—27; 



.GENERALLY DENOMINATED 



THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 



SY THE 

REV. GEORGE STANLEY^FABER, B. P. 

RECTOR 01? RED MARSHALL. 

« Daniel's prophecies reach to the end of the world ; and there is scarce 
« a prophecy in the Old Testament concerning Christ, which doth not in 
" something or other relate to his second corning." Sir Isaac Newton's 
Obscrv. on Daniel, part i. chap. 10. p. 132. 



LCXDOX; 

PSINTED FOR F. C. A N D J*- -HI VI N ti TO X, 

xq, 62, st. paxjl's church-yard. 



181L 



Xaw and Qi|bert ? Printers, St. John's Squares, London, 



TO THE ANCIENT PEOPLE OF GOD^ 
THE DISPERSION OF THE HOUSE OF JUD AH, 
NATION FROM AGE TO AGE EXPECTING THE PROMISED MESSIAH, 

THIS DISSERTATION 

ON 

A REMARKABLE PROPHECY, 
WHICH NOT ONLY FORETELLS HIS ADVENT, 
BUT WITH 

NUMERICAL PRECISION DETERMINES EVEN THE PRECISE EPOCH 
OF IT, 

IS INSCRIBED AND DEDICATED 
BY THEIR 

SINCERE FRIEND AND WELL WISHER, 



THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE* 



There are few predictions that have been mor^ 
repeatedly discussed than that which usually bears 
the name of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. 
Its acknowledged importance has excited universal 
attention t yet the very number of its discordant ex- 
positors seems to show, that ho interpretation has 
hitherto been produced which is in all points unob- 
jectionable. Such is certainly the impression left 
upon my own mind by the perusal of .various com- 
mentaries on the prophecy in question. Most of 
them contain something good : but it has never yet 
been my fate to meet with any one, which is altoge- 
ther satisfactory. This appeared to me to be a 
matter worthy of very serious consideration. For,, 
if a Christian felt and acknowledged the difficulty 
of making this prophecy quadrate exactly with the 
times of hira whom he receives as the Messiah; he 

could 



C vi ) 

could not but be conscious, that every intelligent 
Jew must equally feel the difficulty, which to him 
would doubtless be a matter of triumph. The ad- 
vocate for the divipe mission of Jesus might per- 
haps perplex his Hebrew opponent by urging, that 
the desolation of Jerusalem is represented in the 
prophecy as succeeding the times of the Messiah, 
that Jerusalem has long -hem desolate, and there- 
fore that the times of the Messiah must be past : 
but possibly he might himself be little less per- 
plexed, if his antagonist demanded an unobjection- 
able explanation of the prophecy as applied to Je- 
sus ; and if he urged, that, were Jesus really the 
Messiah, such an explanation surely might be pro- 
duced and certainly ought to be expected. The 
matter, worthy as it is of consideration in all ages, 
further appeared to me to require a peculiar degree 
of attention in times like the present* Whatever 
be the precise date of the 1260 years, we cannot 
be very far removed from their termination ; and, 
whenever their termination shall arrive, we may ex- 
pect to see the restoration of the Jews commence. 
Such being the case, it is surely a point of no small 

importance, 



( vii ) 

importance, that one of the most remarkable pro- 
phecies relative to the Messiah should be clearly 
shewn to haye been accomplished in the person of 
Jesus of Nazareth, or at least that all that part of 
it which relates ' to the Messiah should be shewn to 
have been thus accomplished. If this can be done, 
when the almost mathematical evidence of an ac- 
complished numerical prophecy is considered, it 
may be hoped that at least one stumbling block in 
the way of the conversion of the Jews may be re- 
moved, 

1. In order that the subject may be thoroughly 
discussed, it will be necessary first to inquire into 
the proper mode of computing the seventy weeks. 
This must plainly be ascertained, before any satis- 
factory attempt can be made at explanation. 

2. The second point of inquiry will be the true I 
dates of the different edicts of the kings of Persia 
in favour of the Jews ; because from some one or 
other of these the seventy weeks must, by the ex- 
press declaration of the prophecy, be reckoned. 

3. It will in the third place be expedient to exa- 
mine the different interpretations which have hi- 
therto 



( viii ) 

therto been brought forward. The person, tfe$$ 
prosecutes this examination, would do well to place 
himself in the situation of an unconverted Jew, to 
raise every objection against them that he is, ahle # 
and to subject every position to the most rigid scru- 
tiny. Thus will the ground be cleared for a more 
consistent interpretation, if any such can be pro- 
duced. 

4. After these preliminary discussions, it will be 
highly necessary to examine the prophecy itself in 
ike original language, in order that, in the fourth 
place, we may ascertain its true meaning: for it is 
obvious-, that, until we obtain what may be esteem- 
ed a faithful translation, every attempt at exposition 
must be altogether fruitless. 

5. When this matter is settled, it will still !>e ad- 
viseable to postpone all direct applicatory interpre- 
tation, until we have, in the fifth place, considered 
the mutual relation of the different clauses of the 
prophecy in the abstract. For this purpose, we 
must endeavour, as far as may be, to divest our- 
selves of ail predilection for particular modes of ex- 
position : we must endeavour to forget, that the 

1 prophecy 



( ix ) 

prophecy has ever been at all explained : we mmt 
study it, as we would do any portion of uninspired 
writing, merely that we may learn the connection of 
its different clauses with each other, and thus elicit 
the general meaning of the author : we must sift it, 
in short, by the ordinary rules of composition ; and 
thus exhibit, in a severe scientific form, its general 
abstract meaning, without any regard to what may 
or may not be its particular application to events. 
By adopting such a plan, we shall effectually curb 
the flights of imagination ; bind down any future 
exposition to certain established rules * and deaden 
at least, if not altogether annihilate, the overbearing 
influence of prepossession. 

6. We shall now be prepared, in the sixth place, 
to enter upon the main object of our inquiries, an 
applicatory interpretation of the prophecy itself. 
For this the mass of preliminary matter will be 
found peculiarly serviceable, not to say absolutely 
necessary. Our interpretation will be hedged in 
on every side. We shall be compelled to adhere 
to the mode of calculation, which has been shewn 
to be the true one. We shall be compelled to ad- 
here 



( * ) 

here to the chronology of the dates, which has been 
duly established. We shall be compelled to avoid 
all those errors, which have been detected and cen- 
sured in other expositions. We shall be compelled 
to square our interpretation by the proposed version 
of the prophecy, so far as that version has been 
proved to exhibit the genuine sense of the original. 
And we shall be compelled to reject all expositions 
of particular parts of the prophecy, which will not 
quadrate with its abstract meaning as impartially 
ascertained according to the ordinary rules of com- 
position. When we are thus confined on all sides, 
I will not indeed say, that the interpretation which 
we produce must be the true one; but I may cer- 
tainly say, that there is at least a strong probability 
of its being so. 

7, Yet, after every precaution, it is scarcely to 
be expected that our interpretation should be free 
from all objections: because objections doubtless 
may occur, which could not be guarded against in 
the preliminary matter however comprehensive. It 
will be proper therefore, in the seventh place, to 
consider all those objections, which may be urged 

against 



( » ) 

against the system proposed, and which either have 
not been quite fully anticipated or have hitherto been 
altogether unnoticed. 

8. When this has been done, the author may be 
allowed, in the last place, to conclude with a few ap- 
propriate observations. 

Whether I have succeeded in producing an ex- 
position perfectly unobjectionable, the public must 
determine. I have at least attempted to do so 4 , both 
by avoiding what I conceive to be the errors of my 
predecessors, and by binding myself down to cer- 
tain rules, from which I am not conscious that I 
have ever departed. Should it prove irr any re- 
spect useful to the Jewish nation, the wish nearest 
the author's heart will be fulfilled. 

June 28, ISOp. 



CONTENTS. 



CONTENTS. 



GHAP. I. 

Concerning the proper mode of computing the /event y weeho 

Xt is a question, whether the seventy weeks are composed of 
solar years or of lunar years ; and, if of the latter, whether, 
each year contains 354 days or 360 days. p. 3, 
JL There is no reason to suppose, that the seventy weeks ar* 

composed of years containing each 354 days. p. 5. 
II. But several arguments have been adduced to prove 3 that 

they are composed of years containing each 36© days. 

p. 7. 

I* The grounds on which Mr. Marshall maintains this to 
have been the case. p. 7« 
(1.) From the length of the Noetic year. p. 7. 
(2.) From the length of the Egyptian year. p. f e 
(3.) From the length of the Greek year. p. 7. 
(4.) From the length of the Roman year. p. 8 T 
(5.) From the length of the Chaldean and Persian year, 
p. 8. 

(6.) From the length pf the year of other Asiatic nations* 
p. 8. 

(7.) From the three times and a half of Daniel and Sr^t 
John. p. 8. 

% Granting the truth of this statement, it does not follow 
that the inference drawn from it is just; because, 
whatever might be the length of a single year, the 
question is, whether a series of such years was not by 
intercalation or other means made equal to a corres- 
ponding series of solar years, p. 8, 

.(JO One 



( xiv ) 

(L) One method of lengthening the year of 360 days was 
by adding 5 supernumerary days at the end of it. p.p. 

(2.) Another method was by occasional monthly interca- 
lation, p. 10. 

3. Aware of this remark, Mr. Marshall attempts to shew 

that the year of 360 days was used collectively as well 
as singly, p. 11. 

(1.) His first argument from the conversation of Solon 
with Cresus stated, and answered, p. 11. 

(2.) His second argument from the continuance of the 
Babylonian captivity stated, and answered by shew- 
ing the true length of that captivity, p. 13. 

(3.) His third argument from the collective sum of three 
years and a half stated, and answered, p. 34. 

(4.) His fourth argument from Solomon's purveyorships. 
stated, and answered, p. 36. 

4. From the silence of Scripture there is reason to suppose, 

that monthly intercalations were unknown to the 
more ancient Jews: whence it will follow, that a se- 
ries of their years must have been equal to a corres- 
ponding series of years either of 36o days each or of 
365 days each. p. 38, 
(1.) The latter argued to be the case from two of the 
great Jewish festivals being fixed to spring and au, 
tumn. p. 40. 

(2.) From the lengths of the Levitical weeks of years, 
p. 42. 

(3.) From the duration of the sojourning of the children 
of Israel, p. 43. 

(4.) From the impossibility of reconciling the chronology 
of Israel with that of the neighbouring nations by 
the former mode of computation, p. 46. 

5. The sum of the matter is, that the more ancient Jewish 

year must have been solar, p. 47. 

6. This 



( ) 

<5. This however is of no consequence in reckoning the se- 
venty weeks ; because, whatever might be the length, 
of a single Jewish year, the fixed nature of the great 
festivals proves, that a series of such years must have 
been made equal to a corresponding series of solar 
years. p. 47« 

III. The argument strengthened by the authority of persons 

who have written on the subject; p. 48. 

1. Jackson, p. 49. 

2. Prideaux. p. 60. 

3. Sir Isaac Newton, p. 62, 

4. Blayney. p. 62, 

5. Davies. p. 65, 

IV. The conclusion is, that the more ancient Jews used the so- 

lar year, and that they did not begin to use the in- 
tercalated lunar year until the time of the Greek 
princes in Asia, when the Rabbinical Ve-Adar, which 
is unknown in Scripture, was introduced, p. 74. 

1. But, however this maybe, the observance of th'e great 

festivals proves, that a series of Jewish years must 
have been equal to a series of solar years, p. 75. 

2. Whence it will follow, that the 490 years of the seventy 

weeks must, either singly or collectively, be equal to 
490 solar years, p. 76. 

3. Therefore no interpretation of the prophecy can be ad- 

mitted, which is built on a calculation by abbreviated 
lunar years of either description, p. 77> 



CHAP. II. 

Concerning the chronology of the decrees enacted by the Kings of 
Persia for the rebuilding of the temple and city of Jerusalem and 
for the restoration of the civil and ecclesiastical polity of Judah. 
J. IT has generally been said that four decrees were enacted for 
these several purposes, but it does not appear that 
there were any more than three, p. 78. 

II. The 



( XVI ) 

If- The date of the first decree, enacted in the first year of 
Cyrus, is A. P. J. 4178 and A. A. C. 536. p. 82. 

|IJ. It has been questioned, whether the second decree was 
enacted by Parius Hystaspis or Darius Notlius. The 
latter opinion may be proved to be erroneous by four 
arguments, p. 83. 

1. The first argument, p. 83. 

2. The second argument, p. 84, 

3. The third argument, p. 87. 

4. The fourth argument,, The second decree therefore was 

enacted in the third year of Pari us Hystaspis, 
A. P. J. 4195 and A. A. C. 519- p. 9h 

IV. There is a dispute respecting the true commencement of 

the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. p. £4. 

1. The opinion of Petavius considered. p„ 97. 

2. The opinion of Usher considered, p. IU1. 

3. The opinion of Ptolemy and Prideaux adopted: whence 

the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes is fixed 
to A. P. J. 4256 and A. A, C. 458. p. 106. 

V. A table shewing the dates of the three edicts and the ver* 

bal permission of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 
according to the years of the era of Nabonassar, the 
years of the Julian period^ and the years before the 
Christian era. p. 106. 

VI. The result from the preceding discussion is, that no inter- 

pretation of the prophecy can be admitted, unless it 
computes the seventy weeks from some one of the es- 
tablished dates of the Persian edicts, p. J 07-. 



CHAP. III. 

Concerning -the various interpretations which hare been given of 
the prophecy of the seventy weeks, 

I. Interpretations, which reckon the period of the seventy 
wee ks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus. p. 109. 

J ? Inter-t 



( xvii ) 

Si Interpretation of Africatius. Objections to it p. 109. 
2* Interpretations of Petavius and Usher. Objections ttf 
them. p. 112. 

3. Interpretations of Lloyd, Marshall, Butt, and Wintle. 
p. 118. 

(1.) First objection, p. 12(1 

(2.) Second objection, p. 12& 

(3.) Third objection, p. 123. 

(4.) Fourth objection, p. 128; 
It. Interpretations, which reckon the period from ihk tnird or 
the sixth year of Darius, erroneously supposed to be 
Darius Nothus. Those of Scaliger and Mede. Ob- 
jections to them. p. 136. 

III. Interpretations, which reckon the period from the seventh 

year of ArtaxerxeS Longimanus. p. 137. 

1. Interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton. Objections to it. 

p. 13S. 

2. Interpretation of Prideaux. Objections to it. p. i44. 

3. Interpretation of Cornelius a Lapide. Objections to it 9 

p. 157. 

IV. Interpretations^ which reckon the period from the first 

year of Cyrus, p. 158. 

1. Interpretation of Blayney. p. 158. 

(1.) Objections to the proposed new readings, p. l6S. 
(2.) Objections to the interpretation founded on them* 
p. 177. 

2. Interpretation of Lancaster, p. 202* 
(1.) First objection, p. 208. 

(2.) Second objection, p. 21 1„ 
(3.) Third objection, p. 2L8« 
(4.) Fourth objection, p. 221 c 
(5.) Fifth objection, p. 224„ 



CHAfc 



( xviii ) 



CHAP. IV. 

Concerning the proper translation cf the prophecy* 

THE supposed genuine original text exhibited and translated*, 
p. 228. 

I. A defence of four various readings, p. 230. 
J. The first reading, p. 230. 
.2. The second reading, p. 230. 
- 3. The third reading, p. 230. 

4. The fourth reading, p. 231. 

3Io A defence of certain variations from the common English 
version, p, 232. 

J, The first variation* p. 232* 

2. The second variation, p. 233» 

3> The third variation, p. 234* 
{ 4. The fourth variation, p. 235* 

5. The fifth variation, p. 235. 
€, The sixth variation, p. 235, 
7. The seventh variation, p. 237» 
S. The eighth variation, p. 238. 
p. The ninth variation, p. 242. 

10. The tenth variation, p. 242. 

11. The eleventh variation, p. 245* 

12. The twelfth variation, p. 245. 

13. The thirteenth variation, p. 253» 

14. The fourteenth variation, p. 254» 

15. The fifteenth variation, p. 254. 



CHAP. V. 

Concerning the mutual relation of the different clauses of the 
prophecy considered in the abstract, 

THE importance and utility of establishing certain abstract 
positions, deduced from an examination of the pro- 
phecy itself without reference to any system of inter- 
pretation, p. 256, 

1. Th* 



( xix^ ) 

S. The first abstract position* p. 258* 
' 2. The second, p. 259. 

3. The third, p. 260. 

4. The fourth, p. 260. 

5. The fifth, p. 262. 

6. The sixth, p. 262* 

7. The seventh, p. 265. 
fi. The eighth, p. 265. 
3. The ninth, p. 268. 

10. The tenth, p. 268. 

11. The eleventh, p. 271. 

12. The twelfth, p. 274. 



CHAP. VI. 

An inquiry into the proper interpretation of the prophecy* 
I. A DISCUSSION of the first clause of the prophecy, con- 
tained in Ver. 24. p. 281. 
1. An inquiry into the import of the six particulars con* 
tained in this clause, p. 281. 
(1.) The first particular, p. 282. 
(2.) The second particular, p. 286., 
<3.) The third particular, p. 290. 
(4.) The fourth particular, p. 292. 
(5.) The fifth particular, p. 293. 
(6.) The sixth particular, p. 297. 

With three of these particulars, which are synchronical 
and chronologically later than the other three parti- 
culars, the seventy weeks must terminate : and, since 
these three later particulars synchronize with the 
crucifixion, the seventy weeks must terminate with, 
the crucifixion. Therefore they must commence se- 
venty weeks or 490 years before the crucifixion. And 
this epoch of their commencement precisely coincides 
a; ,2, . with 



( *K ) 

with the date of the going forth of the decree in the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Therefore 
that decree must be the decree mentioned in the pro. 
phecy, p. 299. 

3« The question discussed, how this arrangement agrees with 
the seventy weeks being the times of the hqly city, p, 
302. 

(1.) In order to reconcile them, we are necessarily led , to 
conclude, that the holy city is not the literal Jerusa- 
lem, but a figurative holy city, namely the Levities! 
church and polity, p. 302. 

(2.) This point is established by comparing the prophecy 
with the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes. p, 
303. 

(3.) It is likewise established by the context of the pro- 
phecy itself, p. 310. 

(4.) Such an interpretation accords with the acknowledge^ 
exposition of other parallel passages, p. 312. 
II. A discussion of the second clause, contained in Ver« 25« p» 

314; 

I. Arrangement of the smaller periods comprehended within, 
the seventy weeks, p. 31 6. 
{I.) The sixty nine weeks reach unto the Messiah, by 
which must be understood unto the commencement of 
the G?spel dispensation* Accordingly, if reckoned 
from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
they terminate in A. P. J. 4739; which is the fifteenth, 
year of Tiberius calculated from his admission to a 
copartnership of the empire, and in which the minis- 
try of John the Baptist (declared by our Lord to be 
the beginning of the Gospel dispensation) Commence 
ed. p. Sl6. 

(2.) A reply to Mr. Marshall's objections against this ar- 
rangement of St. Luke's fifteenth year of Tiberius, p, 

321. 

2. Th« 



( xxi ) 

The seyen weeks reach to the completion of the rebuild* 
ing of the figurative holy city, which must have 
taken place about A, P. J. 4305. p. 327. 
(I.) The first objection against this arrangement answer- 
ed, p. 332. 

(2.) The second objection answered, p. 333. 
(3.) The third objection answered, p. 336*. 
3. In what manner the rebuilding of the holy city was to be 

carried on i#itk perpetual increase and firm decision. p v 

339. 

A discussion of the third clause, contained in the former 
part of Ver. 26. Messiah's divorce of the Levitical 
church after the expiration of the sixty nine weeks, 
p. 340. 

JW A discussion of the fourth clause, contained in the latter 

part of Ver, 26. p. 348. 
I. The corruption of the people was the cause of Messiah's 

divorcing the Levitical church, p. 34S. 
£, TKe punishment of the people for their corruption, p, 

353, 

3. Jn what manner there were desolations to the end of the 

tear. 353. 

(1.) The miseries experienced by Jerusalem, p. 353. 
(2.) The miseries experienced byJudea. p. 357. 

4. How the war was firmly decided upon. p. 36'0. 

V, ^ discussion of the fifth clause, contained in the former 
part of Ver. 27- The making of the new covenant 
during one week, and the disannulling of the old one. 
p. 364. 

yi. A discussion of the sixth clause, contained in the latter 
part of Ver. 27. p. 373. 
J. The abolition of the daily sacrifice in half a week. p. 373. 
(1.) Dr. Prideaux's great error is the supposing this half 
week to be the half of the seventieth week, p. 373. 

(?.) ft 

3 



( xxii ) 

(2.) It is the three years and a half that elasped before the 
abolition of the Levitical sacrifices towards the close 
of the siege of Jerusalem, p. 3/6. 
1. The Messiah caused them to cease by the instrumentality 
of the Roman arms. p. 3/9- 

3. Yet it is foretold in this last clause of the prophecy, that 

the Romans themselves are in their turn destined to 
destruction, and that the Jewish sacrifices shall be 
restored in a spiritual manner, at the expiration of 
the great period of 1260 years, p. 379. 

(i .) This interpretation is necessary for various reasons. 
It alone reconciles Daniel with Jeremiah. It exhi- 
bits Daniel in unison both with himself and with all 
the other prophets. It appears to be the very inter- 
pretation given by our Lord himself. It removes cer- 
tain objections built on the connection of the pro*, 
phecy with Daniel's previous supplication, p. 383. 

(2.) Objection to it answered, p. 392. 

4. How the end poured upon the desolator is firmly decided 

upon. p. 394. 

VII. An explanatory paraphrase of the whole prophecy* 
p. 395. 

1. Paraphrase of the first clause, p. 395. 

2. Paraphrase of the second clause, p. 396'. 

3. Paraphrase of the third clause, p. 397* 

4. Paraphrase of the fourth clause, p. 398. 

5. Paraphrase of the fifth clause, p. 398« 

6. Paraphrase of the fixth clause, p. 398, 



C H A P. VII. 

An examination of the objections which may be made to the 
preceding interpretation. 

1. THE first objection to the mystic interpretation of Jerusalem. 
p. 4-00. 

1. The 



( xxiii ) 

|. The first answer to it. p. 401. 
2. The second answer to it. p. 402. 

(1.) The first corollary to the second answer, p. 403„ 

(2.) The second corollary, p. 404. 

II. The second objection to the divorce taking place before the 

times of the holy city had fully expired. The reply to 
it. p. 406. 

III. The third objection to the deficiency of proof that the re- 

building of the figurative holy city was completed at the 
end of the seven weeks. The reply to it. p. 408. 

IV. The fourth objection to the referring the last week of the 

seventy to the period of the ministration of the Gospel, 
on the ground of its being interposed in the midst of mat- 
ters relative to the Jewish war. The reply to it. 
p. 413. 

V. The fifth objection to the half week being considered as no 

part of the seventieth week. The reply to it. p, 4>l6. 

VI. The sixth objection to the computation of the seventy weeks 

by solar years. The reply to it. p. 419* 



CHAP. VIII. 

Observations by way of conclusion. 

An accomplished prophecy is not necessapily so clear as 
to be understood without labour or meiital exertion, 
p. 422. 

An addres to the Jews. p. 424. 
3. An address to Christians, p. 427. 



APPENDIX. 



( xxiv 3 

APPENDIX, 



No. £, 

The astronomical canon of Ptolemy arranged synchronically 
with the kings of Judah and Assyria, the high-priests 
of Judah, the Greek kings of Syria^ and Che princes 
and kings of Judea. p. 43j0; 



No. II. 

Succession of the kings of Judah, the high-priests of Juda& 
and the princes and kings of Judea, from the com- 
mencement of the era of Nabonassar, arranged syii- 
chronically with the kings of Babylon, Assyria, Per- 
sia, Egypt, Syria, and the Roman emperors, p. 433, 



DISSERTATION 

ON TH J 

PROPHECY 

OS THS 

SEVENTY WEEKS. 



8 



A V 

DISSERTATION, fyr 

CHAPTER I. 

Concerning the proper mode of computing the 
seventy weeks, 

In an attempt to elucidate the prophecy of the 
seventy weeks, as the prediction contained in the 
latter end of the ninth chapter of Daniel is usually 
denominated, the first point necessary to be ascer- 
tained is the proper mode of computing those 
weeks. 

That they are weeks, of which each day is to be 
estimated as a year, is almost universally allowed*: 1 

but 

* Mr. Wintle mentions an anonymous writer on this prophecy, 
who has confined the weeks altogether to weeks of days (Trans, 
of Parr, in loc,) : and some of the Jewish Rabbics, to evade the 

B 2 argument 



( 4 ) 

but there has been a considerable discrepance of opib 
nion respecting the kind of year which may be sup- 
posed to have been used by Daniel — Several com- 
mentators have maintained, that the prophet reckons 
by solar years ; or, what amounts to the same thing, 
that the 490 years of the seventy weeks are, accord- 
ing to the Jewish mode of computation, collectively 
equal to 490 soj^ar years. Among these we find the 
names of Usher, Petavius, Scaliger, Mede, Prideaux, 

. Sir Isaac Newton, Cornelius a Lapide, Lancaster, 

! and Blayney — Others have maintained, that he reck-* 
ons by lunar years collectively, no less than singu- 
larly : which makes the 490 years fall considerably 
short of 490 solar years. This opinion was first ad- 

I vanced by Africanus, who flourished in the beginning 
of the third century : and he has been followed by 

j Theodoret, Bede, Zonaras, Rupertus, and most of 
the Romish expositors— Rut those, who agree in 
adopting the computation by lunar years, differ 

argument which Christians draw from it in favour of the Mes-*. 
siahship of Jesus, pretend, that each week is a jubilee or 4$ 
years, and consequently that the whole seventy weeks are equi- 
valent to 34-30 years (Cornel, a Lap. Comment, in Dan. ix. 24.). 
But such systems as these have ever been short-lived. As for 
the Talmud, it acknowledges the seventy weeks to be 490 years 
(Ibid.). The same opinion is likewise maintained by Menas- 
| seh Ben Israel, R. Isaac Abarbanel, R, Jos. Jacchias, R, Aber* 
Ezra, cind others. Marshall on the seventy weeks. IntroducU 
p> 10, 

among 



( s ) 

among themselves respecting the length of the lunar 
year which they suppose Daniel to have used. Afri- 
canus and his immediate followers contend, that we 
ought to reckon by the true astronomical lunar year 
of about 354 days : Bp. Lloyd, Mr. Marshall, Mr. j 
Wintle, and Mr. Butt, prefer the false lunar year of j 
360 days. 

I. I know not, that any argument has been ad- 
duced in favour of the first mode of lunar computa- 
tion, except one, which is in fact a, general argument, 
tending to prove that the prophet does not use natu- 
ral solar years, but abbreviated lunar years of some 
description. It is built upon an expression in the 
exordium of the prediction s What is rendered in 
our common English translation Seventy weeks are 
determined, is rendered in the Vulgate Seventy weeks 
are abbreviated^ and in the Greek version of Thepdo- 
tion Seventy weeks have been cut short # . Hence it 
has been inferred, that a method of shorter reckon- 
ing is to be adopted, and that a continued series of 
lunar years is that employed by Daniel. 

It is manifest, that this argument rests wholly on 
a translation : and the translation is such, that its 
propriety may very well be questioned. The word 

* 'Efifto^zovla, \@}ouah<; a-vnr^'n^G-av, The Greek version of 
Daniel, which generally bears the name of the LXX, appears j 
in reality to have been the work of Thcodotion, 

inn 



( 6 ) 

^nn docs not occur elsewhere in the whole Bible,' 
either in its primitive form or in that of one of its- 
derivatives : but in the writings of the Rabbies it is- 
frequently to be met with. The signification, which 
they ascribe to- it, fs that of cutting: nor is there any 
reason to pronounce them mistaken in supposing that 
such is the primary import of the word. The ques- 
tion therefore is, in what sense of cutting we are to 
understand it in the passage now under discussion i 
for it is obvious, that to cut short or to abbreviate is 
only one of the many complex ideas which spring, 
alike from the original simple idea to cut. That we 
are no way bound to understand it in the sense of 
abbreviating, the sense required by the argument is 
manifest from- the Chaldee Paraphrase on Esther * f 
in which the word itself occurs, A man is there said 
to be called ^HH, because by him all the affairs of 
the kingdom pnnn.E, which the Latin interpreter 
renders were decided or determined. Here, though 
the sense of cutting is involved, because, when a 
matter is decided, it is cut off from other matters 
which have not yet been brought to a legal investi- 
gation* we have nothing, that conveys the idea of ab- 
breviation. It must therefore be mere unsupported 
conjecture to suppose, that in this word any hint is 

* Chap. iv. 5, 



( f ) 

given by the prophet that he is using years of a 
shorter compass than solar years, 
i II. In favour of the second mode of lunar com- 
putation, several arguments, which are sufficiently 
specious, have been urged by Mr. Marshall, who 
has adopted and strenuously defended the hypothe- 
sis of Bp. Lloyd: but they do not appear to me by 
any means to prove his point* 

1 . The following are the grounds, oil which he 
maintains, that the false lunar year of 360 days was 
used both by the Jews and other ancient nations : 
whence he infers that the seventy weeks must be 
reckoned according to it. 

( I .) In the time of Noah a month was 30 days, \ 
because five months are said to be equal to 150 
days*; therefore the year consisted of 360 days. 

(2.) Manetho tells us, that the ancient Egyptian 
year contained only 360 days, and that in the time 
of Aseth five days were added to it, which were 
therefore called additional days. 

(3.) Among the Greeks, in the time of Cleobulus 
Lindius, who was contemporary with Daniel, the ^ 
year was also the same length; 

* Compare Gen. vii. 24. viii, 3. tii. 11; viii. 4. Front the 
seventeenth day of the second month, to the seventeenth day of 
the seventh month, there were just five months; and this pe~ 
riod is represented as being ecjual to 150 days. 

(4.) Such 



( s ) 

(4.) Such also was the length of the year' among 
s the Romans, during the reign of Romulus, as we 
are informed by Plutareh. 

(5.) The same was its length among the Chal- 
; deans and Persians, even after the taking of Baby- 
lon by the latter. 

(6.) It obtained also among the other Asiatic na- 
f lions, particularly the Lydians, who were the allies 
of the Chaldeans in their war' against Cyrus. 

(7.) Lastly, as a proof positive, that such is the 
length of the scriptural year, Mr. Marshall observes, 
t that the three times and a half of Daniel and St, John 
are represented as being equal to 42 months, and 
those 42 months plainly contain 1260 days : but, 
since this is only so at the rate of 360 days to the 
year, it will follow that each year contains 360' 
days *. 

% Now, granting the truth of the whole of this 
statement, it does not by any means follow, that the 
conclusion drawn from it is a just one. In order to- 
ascertain the length of the seventy prophetic weeks, 
we must not consider the precise length of a solitary 
insulated year among the Jews ; but we must exa- 
mine into the length of a continued period of suck- 
years : that is to say, we must not reckon, by an 

* Marshall's Treatise on the Seventy Weeks, Par-Hi. chap 0 
iv, p, 233— -252, 

arbitrary 



( 9 ) 

arbitrary mechanical calculation of our own, that a 
term of ancient years contains exactly such a num- 
ber of ancient years, be their individual lengths 
what they may ; but we most inquire, whether a 
term of ancient years was not, by intercalations or 
other additions, made, in matter of fact, precisely 
equal to a corresponding term of natural solar years. 
Should this last prove to be the case, whatever 
might be the length of a single year of the 490 
years, the collective series of those years will un- 
doubtedly be equal to the same series of true astro- 
nomical solar years. 

(1.) One of the expedients used to make the im- 
perfect year of 360 days tally with the natural year 
was, as Mr. Marshall himself allows, the addition of 
five supernumerary days at the end of it. Such toe 
confesses to have been the plan adopted by the 
Chaldeans, the Persians, and the Egyptians, even in 
the days of Daniel, not to say long before; and such 
indisputably was the plan that was followed in the 
construction of the Kabonassarean year. The pro- 
bability therefore is, that the prophet used this year. 
But, if such were the plan adopted by those nations, 
no argument can be drawn from the length of each 
month to prove the length of the whole year. The 
five additional days w r ere accounted a part of ?m 
month ; and they w r ere considered rather as supple- 
mentary to the year, than as properly belonging to 

it 



( 10 ) 

it Hence the circumstance of five Noetic months? 
at the time of the deluge being equal to 150 days 
will not prove, that the Noetic year really contain- 
ed no more than 360 days, though it might nomi- 
?ially do so ; because, whether the year consisted of 
12 months of 30 days each only, or of 12 months of 
30 days each, and 5 additional days belonging to no 
months in either case 5 months would be equal to 
150 days* Hence also the circumstance of three 
years and a half being represented as comprehend- 
ing indifferently 42 months and 1260 days, will not 
prove that the real length of the year in the time 
of Daniel was only 560 days. The same result 
would come out, if the reputed length of the year, 
viewed as containing 12 months of 30 days each, 
were alone considered, and if the additional days 
were not taken into the account for the conveni- 
ence of having three perfectly coincident numbers. 
And we may safely conclude, that this curtailed 
mode of reckoning by the nominal year is here fol- 
lowed ; because, by the acknowledgment of Mr.- 
Marshall himself, a year of 36*0 days with 5 super- 
numerary days, not a year of 360 days simply, was 
used by the very people among whom Daniel re- 
sided. 

(2.) Another expedient used was that of occasional 
intercalation. Various were the methods of inter- 
calating, and some of them grossly erroneous ; but 

their 



( n ) 

their object uniformly was to prevent the revolution 
of the months through all the seasons successively 5 
and thus to make the gross amount of any given se- 
ries of lunar years equal to that of a corresponding 
series of solar years. 

According to either of these expedients, it is ob* 
vious, that, whatever might be the length of a single 
year either nominally or really, the collective sum oC 
4d0 years of any description would be equal to 490 
solar years. 

o< Of the cosencv of this remark Mr. Marshall 
is perfectly aware ; and therefore, in reply to it, he 
endeavours to shew that the lunar year of 360 days 
was used, not only singularly, but collectively. 

(1.) His first argument is deduced from the con- 
versation of Solon with Cresus, as recorded by He- 
rodotus. Solon, to shew the great variety of cir- 
cumstances which occur in the life time of a man 
who attains to the age of seventy years, computes 
the number of days in such a man's life; and then 
remarks, that the events of no one day are exactly 
the same as those of another. In making; his cal- 
dilation, he first estimates the years unintercalated; 
and tells us, that in seventy years there are 25,200 
days. He then reckons a leap-month as being 
added every other year; and says, that the 35 
leap-months contain 1 050 days. Lastly he takes 
the sum of the 25,200 and the 1050 days, or 



( i% ) 

25,250 days, as being the true amount of seventy 
years. Now 25,200 days in seventy years are at 
the rate of 36'0 days in a year. Hence, because 
Solon in his calculation first reckons the number of 
days in seventy years of 360 days each without tak- 
ing the leap-months into the account, Mr. Marshall 
argues, that the collective sum of seventy such years 
was not equal to seventy solar years. 

The passage, whence he draws this conclusion, 
seems to me plainly to prove the very reverse. So- 
lon, so far from teaching us that the collective sum 
of seventy years of 360 days each was only 25,200 
days, tells us, that, when the intercalated months 
were taken into the account, it was 26,250 days. 
The gross error of this mode of intercalation it is su- 
perfluous to point out: but the passage itself] so far 
from proving that lunar years were used without in- 
tercalation, and that a series of them taken collec- 
tively fell considerably short of a corresponding se- 
ries of solar years, decidedly proves, that they were 
not used without intercalation, and that the expedi- 
ent of intercalation was adopted (however in the 
present instance it would soon be found insufficient) 
for the express purpose of making the seasons of the 
year fall out at their proper times % _and of thug- 

* Ivx at uecci vvu$ccivuai 'neiga.ywofizvcit es to $bov. HerocJo 
lib. i. §. 32. 

rendering 



( 13 ) 

rendering any series of lunar years collectively equal 
to the same series of solar years. 

( ( 2.) His second argument is deduced from the 
continuance of the Babylonian captivity. This is 
declared in Scripture to be seventy years. Now 
70 years of 360 days each are equal, within two 
days, to 69 solar years. Mr. Marshall therefore 
attempts to shew, that the Babylonian captivity 
lasted no longer than 69 solar years : and thence 
infers, that years of 360 days each were used col- 
lectively without intercalation. For this purpose he 
reckons, that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchad- 
nezzar in the November of the year A. C. 606, 
when the captivity of Judah commenced ; that Ba- 
bylon was taken by Cyrus towards the end of the 
year A.C. 539 ; and that Darius the Mede died to- 
wards the close of the year A. C. 537, when Cyrus 
attaining to undivided empire enacted his decree 
for the restoration of the Jews, and thus put an end 
to the captivity at the expiration of 69 solar years 
or 70 years of 360 days each after its commence- 
ment 

With respect to the dates on which this hypo^ 
thesis is founded, I certainly believe with Mr. Mar- 
shall, that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar 
in the November of the year A. C. 6()6, as Dr. Pri^ 
deaux supposes, not in the November of the year 
ft, C. 607, as Abp. Usher supposes : but it i y 
2 nevertheless 



( 14 ) 

nevertheless be shewn, fern a comparison of the 
canon of Ptolemy with Scripture and Xenophon, 
that more than 67 solar years must have elapsed 
between that event and the capture of Babylon by 
Cyrus ; whence it will follow, since Darius the 
Mede reigned 2 years after the capture of Babylon, 
that more than 69 solar years must have elapsed 
between the taking of Jerusalem and the commence- 
ment of the undivided reign of Cyrus. 

Daniel informs us, that Nebuchadnezzar, king of 
Babylon, came against Jerusalem to besiege it in 
the third year of Jehoiakim*: and Jeremiah deli- 
vered one of his prophecies of the seventy years 
immediately before the city was taken, in the fourth 
year of Jehoiakim, which he tells us was the first 
year of Nebuchadnezzar f. But it appears from 
Daniel, that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon 
m Jehoiakim's third year also ; because he says, 
that in that very third year, then being king, he 
came against Jerusalem to besiege it. It will foU 
low therefore, that the first year of Nebuchadnez- 
zar must have coincided with the latter part of the 
third and the former part of the fourth year of 
Jehoiakim J. And, since Jerusalem was taken in 

the 

* Dan. i. 1, t Jerero. xxv. l f 

I It seems to have commenced almost at the close of the 
third year of Jehoiakim: as Abp. Usher observes, " desinente 

tertioj 



( fs ) 

the fourth year of Jehoiakim, it will likewise fol~ 
low that it must have been taken in the latter part 
of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar — Daniel fur- 
ther informs us, that he and other captives were 
maintained and taught at the kings expence three 
years*. Such being the case, the first of these 
years must have coincided with the close of Nebu- 
chadnezzar's first year and the greater part of his 
second year : the second, with the close of his se- 
cond year and the greater part of his third year : 
and the third, with the close of his third year and 
the greater part of his fourth year. But Daniel 
tells us, that after these three years he was brought 
before Nebuchadnezzar to interpret his dream, and 
that this happened in the king's second year f 9 
Hence it is evident, tnat the fourth year of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, according to Jeremiah's reckoning, co- 
inciding as it does with the greater part of the third 
of Daniels three years of education, must coincide 
with the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, according 
to Daniel's reckoning. It wili follow therefore, as 
chronologers justly calculate J, that Nebuchadnez- 

tl tertio, et irieunte quarto Jehojakimi anno, ex Dan. i. 1. 
" collato cum Jereiii. xxv. 1. ititeiligimu.s," Annal. in A. P. J. 
4107. 

* Dan. i. 5. f Dan. ii. 1. 

% On the authority, as Dr. Prideaux remarks, of Berosus 
fipud Joseph. Ant, Jud. lib. x. c. 11. et contra Apjpni lib. i. 

zar 



( 16 ) 

2ar reigned two years in conjunction with his father 
Nabopollassar ; and that Jeremiah computes from 
the beginning of his joint reign, while Daniel com- 
putes from the beginning of his undivided reign. 
Consequently, the two last years of Nabopollassar 
are the two first of Nebuchadnezzar, according to 
Jeremiah's reckoning : and Jerusalem, having been 
taken by Nebuchadnezzar in Yiisjirst year accord- 
ing to that reckoning, must have been taken in the 
penultimate year of Nabopollassar. Now, accord- 
ing to the canon of Ptolemy, which gives the reign 
of each king from the death of his predecessor, Na- 
bocolassar, the Nebuchadnezzar of Scripture, reign- 
ed 43 years ; Elyarodamus, 2 years ; Nericassolas- 
sar, 4 years ; and Nabonadius, the Belshazzar of 
Scripture, 17 years: amounting, in the whole, to 66 
years But Nebuchadnezzar reigned conjointly 
with his father £ years ; and, at the latter end of the 
first year of his copartnership in the empire, Jeru- 
salem was taken by him. To the 66 years there- 
fore we must add a year and a fraction of the 2 
years of Nebuchadnezzar's joint reign ; and we shall 
have 67 years and a fraction of uncertain length, at 
the end of which Babylon was taken and Belshazzar 
slain — After Nabonadius or Belshazzar Ptolemy 
places Cyrus, and ascribes to him 9 years : but 

* See the canon of Ptolemy in the Appendix. 

Scripture 



( 17 ) 

Scripture places the reign of Darius the Mede in 
Babylon, between Belshazzar and Cyrus ; and Xe- 
nophon ascribes to Cyrus only 7 years. Darius 
therefore, who is overlooked by Ptolemy, must have 
reigned jointly with Cyrus 2 years. Hence it will 
follow, that the scriptural first year of Cyrus must 
be the same as Xenophon's first year of Cyrus ; 
and that this first year must coincide with his third 
year according to the canon of Ptolemy. Add the 
% years of Darius, or Ptolemy's 2 first years of Cy- 
rus, to the 67 years and a fraction, and the product 
will be 69 years and a fraction — This space of time 
then must have elapsed between the capture of Je- 
rusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the accession of 
Cyrus to undivided empire. Therefore, supposing 
Cyrus to have enacted his decree for the restoration 
of the Jews immediately upon the death of Darius 
and at the very beginning of his scriptural first year 
(sooner than this he could not have enacted it con- 
sistently with Ezra's account), there still would be 
more than 69 solar years or 70 years of 360 days 
each between the capture of Jerusalem and the 
enacting of the decree of Cyrus # . 

What 

* Dr. Prideaux, by a somewhat similar calculation, brings 
out a result of 69 solar years and two months, as being the pe- 
riod of time that elapsed between the capture of Jerusalem and 
the accession of Cyrus to sole empire. I suspect however, that 

C he 



( 1* ) 

What has been said sufficiently invalidates Mr* 
Marshall's argument, which is founded on the opi- 
nion that exactly 69 solar years was the length of 
the Babylonian captivity. Yet, while I am per- 
suaded that its duration was 70 solar years, I can- 
not altogether assent to the arrangement either of 
Usher or Prideaux. I fully agree with the latter 
of these authors, as I have already observed, that 
Jerusalem must have been taken by Nebuchadnez- 
zar in the November of the year A. C. 606, This 
point may, I think, be sufficiently proved. That 
the city was taken on the eighteenth day of No- 
vember or on the corresponding day of the ninth 
month Cisleu, appears from the annual fast in com- 
memoration of it still kept by the Jews * i the only 
question therefore is, in the November of what year 
it was taken. Now it appeared from the preceding 
discussion, that it was taken in the penultimate 
year of Nabopollassar, according to the canon of 
Ptolemy: but this year coincides with the year 
A.C. 606: therefore the city must have been taken 
in the November of the year A. C. 606. And, that 
this is the true date of its capture, w e may further 
collect from the sum of years ascribed by Ptolemy 

he makes the fraction of a year too short. See his Connect. 
Part i. B. ii. p. 135. 

* Usser. Anual. in A. P. J. 4107 — Pridcaux's Connect. 
Part i. B. i. p. 64. 

9 to 



V 

( 19 ) 

to the Babylonian princes after NabopollasSaf* 
This sum, as we have seen, is 66 years. Add to it 
the year and a fraction of the reign of Nabopollas- 
sar, which elapsed after the capture of Jerusalem, 
and we have 67 years and a fraction. And add 
to this last sum the L Z years of Darius, and we have 
69 years and a fraction. Thus we learn, that 69 
years and a fraction of indefinite length elapsed 
between the capture of Jerusalem and the acces- 
sion of Cyrus to undivided empire, But the scrip* 
tural first year of Cyrus coincides with the year 
A. C. 536, Now, from whatever point in this 
year we suppose his sole reign to have commenced, 
if we reckon back from that point 69 years, w T e 
shall be brought to the corresponding point in the 
year A. C 605 : and, if from this point in the year 
A. C. 605 we reckon back the additional fraction 
of a year to the first November, we shall be brought 
to the November in the year A. C. 606. Or, if we 
suppose with Prideaux the sole reign of Cyrus to 
have commenced at the very close of the year 
A. C. 537, the result will still be the same : for, in 
that Case, the 69 years reckoned backward wilL 
bring us to the very close of the year A. C. 606 ; 
and the additional fraction, to the November of the 
same year. Thus I think it certain, that Jerusalem 
must have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the 
November of the year A. C* 606. That prince, 

c % however, 



( 20 ) 

however, invaded Judea about two months before 
he made himself master of the capital ; that is to 
say, immediately after the great fast of expiation, 
which was kept by the Jews on the tenth day of 
their seventh month Tisri, and during which Ba- 
ruch read Jeremiah's roll to the people % From 
this invasion of Judea I conceive that the seventy 
years ought to be reckoned : because they were 
the years of the desolation of the land f : and the 
land began to be desolate, when it began to be de- 
vastated by the inroads of an hostile army. If then 
we reckon 70 years from the middle of the month 
Tisri in the year A. C. 606, we shall be brought 
to the middle of the month Tisri in the year 
A. C. 536. Let us proceed to inquire how far this 
era may be deemed a proper termination of the 
period. 

Dr. Prideaux fixes the capture of Babylon to 
the very close of the year A. C. 539 : but I am 
rather inclined to think with Abp. Usher, that it 
must have been taken in the spring of the following 
year ; and I further think, that there is at least a 
high degree of probability that it was taken in the 
night between the last day of April and the first day 
of May. 

* Jerem. xxxvi. 1 — 8. See Usser. Annal. in A. P. J. 4] 07. 
and Piideaux's Connect. Part i. B. i. p. 64>. 
f Jerem. xxv. 11. 

It 



( 21 ) 

It was taken during the celebration of a great 
festival in honour of the Chaldean gods * : and, 
from the splendor and universality of the festival, 
it being celebrated (according to Xenophon) by all 
the Babylonians f, no less than by the thousand 
lords mentioned by Daniel, we may reasonably 
conclude that it was the greatest festival of this 
description. Now it is well know n that Bel was 
the principal god venerated by the Babylonians ; 
and Herodotus tells us, that there was a yearly 
festival observed in honour of him J. This very 
festival then in honour of Bel, and in honour like- 
wise (I may add) of the other kindred deities (for 
Bel, like each of the great gods of the old myco- 
logists, was a pantheus) ; this very festival I strong- 
ly suspect to have been observed on the night in 
which Babylon was taken §. Such an opinion is 

confirmed 

* Dan. v. 4, 23. 

-f Cyropasd. lib. vii. p. 331. Oxon. 
J Herod. Hist. lib. i. § 183. 

§ That Babylon was taken on a staled annual festival ©f some 
description, and not oit one accidentally observed, is manifest 
from the language of Xenophon. O h Ki/go;, sieu^n hgrriv 
"roiavlviv ev BoifivXavi yxiscrev eivui, ev v) Trocvlzq Bct(3v?winoi oAtjv ryv 
vvxlct wivacn nou xufAcc^o-iv ev Tocvlv) — Cyrop. lib. vii. p. 331. 
" But Cyrus, when he had heard that a festival was celebrated 
" in Babylon of such a nature, that all the Babylonians drank 
" and revelled the whole night upon the occasion" — These 
words certainly imply, that Cyrus heard of its being customary 

for 



( 22 ) 

confirmed by several passages of Scripture. The 
holy vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, which were 
placed by Nebuchadnezzar in the temple at Baby- 
lon # and therefore desecrated to Bel (for the Ba- 
bylonian temple was the temple of Belt), were 
upon this occasion brought out by Belshazzar, and 
polluted to the purposes of idolatrous festivity. 
Since therefore those vessels now formed a part of 
the furniture of Bel's temple, the probability is, 
that they were brought out specially in his honour. 

for them to revel the whole of that night. He could not have 
heard, that they had been revelling the whole of the night on 
which he took the city, because he took it before the night 
was half over: but he heard, that it was vsual for them to 
spend it in revelling. Hence he concluded, that they would 
do so again; he concluded, that he might positively depend 
upon their doing so : and he piauned his measures accordingly. 
The festival therefore was not an accidental one, but a Jixed or 
'periodical one. This being the case, when we consider the 
manner in which the theological festivals of paganism were 
celebrated, the probability is, that it was of a religious nature: 
and, if it were at once periodical and theological, the probabi- 
lity further is, that it was the great annual festival in honour of 
Bel, mentioned by Herodotus. Add to this, what I have al- 
ready mentioned, that Daniel expressly informs us, that part 
of the festival was theological, consisting of offering up praises 
to the gods ; and these probabilities seem to amount to little 
less than certainty. 

* 5 Chron. xxxvi. 7. Ezra v. 14. 

| See Herod. Hist. lib. i. § 181, 182, 183, 

Th© 



( 23 ) 

The same circumstance appears to be insinuated 
by Isaiah. Foretelling the downfall of Babylon, 
and alluding to the manner in which the idol gods 
were wont to be drawn by oxen in portable shrines*, 
he exclaims, cc Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth ; 
" their idols are laid on the beasts and the cattle : 
" their burdens are heavy, a grievous weight to the 

* See my Dissert, on the mysteries of the Cabiri. Vol. i. 
p. 35, 43, 218, 219. See also Davies's Mythology of the Bri- 
tish Druids, p. 139, 141, 142, 1? 1 , 179- I cannot help ob- 
serving, that this curious work of Mr. Davies decidedly corro- 
borates my opinion respecting the nature and universality of 
the helio-arkite mysteries of the Cabiri. The scattered no- 
tices, which I was able to collect, led me to conclude that 
they prevailed among our Celtic ancestors, and that the history 
of Merlin — and the original Arthur — was mythological. This 
now appears very evidently to have been the case. The theo- 
logy of the Druids, tike that (I believe) of all the ancient na- 
tions, was composed of traditions relative to the deluge, mixed 
with astronomical Sabianism. They worshipped Noah in con- 
junction with the sun, and the ark in conjunction with the 
moon. Bel, Hu, and Arthur, were equally the helio-arkite 
patriarch. The history of Arthur is immediately connected 
with that of the Argonauts. He is the Arcturus of the sphere. 
The bard Taliesin, in his poem intitled Spoils of t lie Deep, which 
treats wholly of diluvian mythology, represents him as presid- 
ing in the ship, which brought himself and seven friends safe 
to land, when the deep swallowed up the rest of the human 
race. He speaks of course of the ancient Arthur, many par- 
ticulars of whose history have been confounded with that of 
the prince of that name. 

" weary 



( 24 ) 

" weary beast. They crouched, they bowed down 
" together: they could not deliver their own charge; 
" even they themselves are gone into captivity # ." 
The language of Jeremiah is exactly similar. " De- 
" clare ye among the nations, and publish, and set 
" up a standard ; publish, and conceal not : say, 
" Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach 
" is broken in pieces ; her idols are confounded, 
f ' her images are broken in pieces — A drought is 
" upon her waters, and they shall be dried up : for 
" it is the land of graven images, and they are mad 
" upon their idols — And I will pxmish Bel in Baby- 
" Ion, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that 
which he hath swallowed up: and the nations 
* c shall not flow together any more unto him : yea, 
" the wall of Babylon shall fall — I will do judgment 
" upon the graven images of Babylon, and her 
V. whole land shall be confounded — 1 will do judg- 
<c ment upon her graven images, and through all 
" her land the wounded shall groan f." The selec- 
tion of this particular time to pour out vengeance 
upon Babylon perfectly accords with the general 
course of God's penal dispensations throughout the 
Old Testament. They are usually so ordered as 
to exhibit most conspicuously the triumphs of Je- 
hovah over the false deities of the Gentiles. Such 



* Jsaiah $lyi. 1, % f Jerem, 1, 2, 38, li. 44, 47, 52, 



( 25 ) 

was the nature of all the plagues of Egypt * : such 
was the nature of the last exploit of Sampson : such 
was the nature of the punishment inflicted on Da- 
gon before the ark: such was the nature of Elijah's 
contest with the priests of Baal : and such was the 
nature of the overthrow of the Syrians under Ben- 
hadad, in the clays of Ahab j\ There was there- 
fore a peculiar propriety in the Almighty's so order- 
ing it, that Babylon should be taken on the very fes- 
tival of Bel : and, with this view of the subject, we 
shall perceive a remarkable force in the preceding 
denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah, 

If then Babylon was taken on a festival of Bel, 
we must enquire at what time of the year the festival 
in question was celebrated. Herodotus mentions 
only one anniversary festival of this deity, probably 
on account of the superior solemnity of that one ; 
but there appear to have been several of them. 
The celebration of these was fixed to the vernal 
equinox, May-day, the summer solstice, the first of 
August, and the eve of the first of November %. 
Now we may determine in general, that Babylon 
must have been taken some time between the latter 

* See this matter shewn at large in Bryant's Treatise on the 
Plagues of Egypt. 

f Judges xvi. 23 — 31 — 1 Sam, v. 1 — 7. vi. 5 — 1 Kings xviii* 
18—40—1 Kings xx. 23—29. 

| Collect, de rebus Hibernicis. Vol. iii. p. 286\ 

end 



C 26 ) 

end of December in the year A. C, 539, and the 
beginning of May in the year A. C. 538. This will 
appear from the following considerations. It could 
not have been taken earlier than December : be- 
cause (as we collect from the canon of Ptolemy) it 
was taken 67 years and a fraction after the capture 
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and Jerusalem 
was taken on the 18th of November in the year 
A. C. 606. Neither could it have been taken later 
than the May following : because two years after 
its capture Cyrus became sole king by the death of 
Darius the Mede, and in the September of the first 
year of his sole reign the Jews were in Jerusalem 
celebrating the feast of tabernacles * : but, if the 
decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews, 
which was enacted in the first year of his sole reign, 
had been enacted later than the beginning of May, 
the Jews could not possibly have been in Jerusalem 
the September following, for we cannot allow a 
shorter space than four months for their journey 
from Babylon into their own country : hence it will 
follow, since Babylon was taken about two years 
before the commencement of the scriptural first 
year of Cyrus, and since this first year could not 
have commenced later than the beginning of May, 



41 Ezra in. 1 9 



that 



( 27 ) 

that Babylon eould not have been taken later than 
the beginning of May. 

Having thus ascertained that Babylon must have 
been taken between December and May, we may 
safely pronounce it to have been taken (if it were 
taken on a festival of Bel) either at the vernal equi- 
nox or on May-day, that is to say on the night pre- 
ceding May-day ; because the other festivals do not 
fall within the limited period. With respect to ar- 
ranging the 70 years, it is immaterial which of these 
we suppose to be the epoch of the capture of Baby- 
lon: but the latter seems to me the most probable: 
both because, since the principal festival of Bel was 
then observed, and since the festival on which Ba- 
bylon was taken was clearly one of peculiar magni- 
ficence, the presumption is, that the festival in ques- 
tion was the chief festival, and therefore the festival 
of May-eve; and because likewise, on this suppo- 
sition, the triumph of Jehovah over the false deity 
%vould be more conspicuous and striking. At the 
beginning of May, before an alteration was pro- 
duced through all the signs of the zodiac by the 
gradual precession of the equinoxes, the sun entered 
into Taurus : and, at that time, the great annual 
festival of Bel, or the solar deity worshipped in con- 
junction with the arkite patriarch, was universally 
celebrated. The custom prevailed, over a vast ex- 
tent of country, from India in the east even to Bri- 
tain 



( 28 ) 

tain in the west # . By the Hindoos it has been irn- 
memorially. observed. It appears again in the 
Druidical practice of kindling fires on May-eve at 
the top of the ancient Cams in honour of the sun, 
and in the designating of those sacred fires by the 
name of Bealtine or the fires of Bel And vestiges 
of it may be detected in the kindred denomination 
of Beltin, applied even yet to May-day in the Gae- 
lic dialect of the Scottish highlands. The same 
day was no less hallowed in Ireland : and the old 
idolatrous custom of lighting fires on May-eve in 
honour of Bel, of passing through them by way of 
purification, and of bearing in solemn procession 
two balls representing the sun and the moon, is still 
devoutly kept up in that country. The vernal sea- 
son, in short, when the sun formerly entered into 
the hull, the zodiacal symbol of the great patriarch, 
and when all nature was reviving from the death of 
winter, was the special time of celebrating the helio- 
arkite mysteries of Bel, both by the Brahmins of 

* A religion fundamentally the same was established over a 
belt about forty degrees broad across the old continent, in a 
south-east and north-west direction, from the eastern shores of 
the Malayan peninsula to the western extremity of the British 
isles. See Wilford on the sacred isles of the west. Asiat. Res. 
wL viii. p. 264. 

India> 



( 29 ) 

India, the astronomical priests of Chaldea/ and the 
Druids of Britain *. 

Supposing 

* Maurice's Ancient Hist, of Hindostan. Vol. i. p. 205, 230, 
£44, 258, 259— Maurice's Ind. Antiq. Vol. vi. p. 40, 41, 89— 
94 — Toland's Hist, of the Druids, p. 67, 71 — BorlaseVHist. 
of Cornwall, b. ii. c. 20 — Davies's Mythology of the British 
Druids, p. 121, 133, 238, 541, 333, 369— Collect, de reb. Hi- 
bern. Vol. ii. p. 66. Vol. iii. p. 286, 502. From this last work 
I extract the following curious particulars, which sufficiently 
shew that on May-day was celebrated the chief festival of 
BeL 

il The Irish call the month of May Bel- tine or fire of Bdm, 
u and the first day of May la Bel-tine or the fire &f Beluss day 
if — Mr. Martin, in his history of the western isles of Scotland, 
w which were peopled by the ancient Irish, observes, that they 
" had a deity named Be/us or Belinus, which seems to have 
" been the Assyrian god Bel ; and probably from this pagan 
te deity comes the Scots term of Beltin, the first day of May, 
" having its first rise from the custom practised by the Druids 
" in these isles of extinguishing all the fires in the parish until 
u the tythes were paid, and upon payment of them the fires 
" were kindled in each family, and never till then — The Irish 
" still preserve this custom, for the fire is to this day lighted ia 
H the milking yards : the men, women, and children, for the 
" same reason pass through or teap over the sacred fires ; and 
" the cattle are driven through the flames of the burning straw 
" on the first of May. In some parts, as the counties of Wa- 
ff terford and Kilkenny, the brides, married since the last 
" May-day, are compelled to furnish the young people with a 
" ball covered with gold-lace, and another covered with silver- 
Si lace, finely adorned with silver tassils. These balls, the 

** symbols 



( so ) 

Supposing Babylon tp have fallen on May-eve lit 
the year A.C. 538, an opinion which very well cor- 
responds with the arrangement of Abp. Usher*, 

* symbols of the sun and moon, are suspended in a hoop orna- 
*' mented with flowers, which hoop represents the circular path' 
* 4 of Beius or the sun: and in this manner they walk in pro- 
*' cession from house to house — The month of May was indeed 
*' the most proper season of the year to acknowledge the bene- 
4< ftcent favours of Belus or the sun ; because in May that 
** great planet begins to beautify the face of the earth, to nou- 
*' rish its decayed plants and vegetables, and to put life and 
" warmth into its animal beings — Hence it was, without doubt, 
" that almost every pagan nation adored this beautiful planet 
" as the parent of nature, under different names and appelia- 
" tions ; a religion, which took its rise in Chaldea, and was 
*' soon carried into Egypt, and from thence to Greece. It 
" spread itself also to the most distant parts of the world ; and 
46 infected, not only the eastern and western Scythians and 
** Tartars, but the Mexicans too, for the Spaniards found it 
•* there — The ancient practice of adoring the sun, by the sym- 
41 bol of lire, was first introduced into the world by Nimrod — 
44 This idolatrous mode of worship soon overspread the earth. 
*' The Canaanites or Phenicians observed it in the same man- 
« ner with the pagan Irish. We read it in the 4th book of 
" Kings, that they served Baal, and religiously passed their 
" sons and daughters through his fire, in which they were imi- 
4£ tated by the idolatrous Israelites/' 

The custom of dancing round a May-pole is a relic of one 
part of the rites of Bel, however ignorant the dancers may be 
of the nature of their festivity. But enough has been said on 
the subject. 

* See Usser. Annal. in A, A. C. 53S. 

the 



t 31 ) 

the two years of Darius, reckoned from that time, 
will bring us to the spring of the year A. C. 536: 
that is to say, still agreeably to the arrangement of 
Usher *, the first year of Cyrus must have com- 
menced in this same spring, probably about April 
or perhaps March. And, almost immediately after 
his accession to sole empire, his decree in favour of 
the Jews must have been enacted : for, as I have al- 
ready observed, we cannot allow a shorter space 
than four months for their journey home ; and we 
find them celebrating their first feast of tabernacles 
in the seventh month Tisri, or in the September of 
this year. 

Now we have previously seen, that 70 years, 
reckoned from the middle of the month Tisri in the 
year A. C. 606, when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Ju- 
dea, will bring us to the middle of the month Tisri 
in the year A. C. 536: and we now find, that, ex- 
actly in the middle of this month in this year, the 
Jews after their arrival in their own land were cele- 
brating the feast of tabernacles in their capital city. 
At this time therefore I conceive the seventy years 
of the predicted desolation of the land to have ex- 
pired : for, as that desolation commenced with Ne- 
buchadnezzar's devastating invasion of the land, so 
the point of its termination is solemnly and natu- 

? See Usser. Annal. in A, A. C. 536. 

rally 



( 32 ) 

rally marked by the celebration of one of the great 
festivals in Jerusalem now first beginning to recover 
from its desolate condition. 

The preceding arrangement of the seventy years 
I prefer both to that of Usher and to that of Pri- 
deaux. Usher, by reckoning from the supposed 
binding of Jehoiakim in the spring of the year A.C. 
60S to the enacting of the decree of Cyrus in the 
spring of the year A. C. 536, produces, no doubt, 
the sum of 70 years : but then he places the capture 
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar a year too early. 
Pndeaux, on the contrary, places the capture of Je- 
rusalem where it ought to be placed : but, in order 
to make up the sum of 70 years, he is obliged to 
throw forward the edict of Cyrus to the latter end- 
of the year A. C. 536, that is to say, to the latter 
end of his first year instead of its beginning. This 
compels him to place the first feast of tabernacles 
in the Tisri of the year A. C. 535, or in the second 
year of Cyrus : whereas, as Abp. Usher rightly 
judges, it manifestly appears from Ezra to have 
been celebrated in his first year, because no other 
year is mentioned # . In addition to their respective 

peculiar 

* Ezra, after stating that the Jews began to return in the 
Jirst year of Cyrus, tells us, that in the seventh month they ga- 
thered themselves together to Jerusalem ; and this he tells us 
without specifying any other year than the first year of Cyrus. 

Having 



( 33 ) 

peculiar errors, these two arrangements appear to 
me to be equally faulty in making the seventy years 
terminate with the enacting of the decree of Cyrus, 
Josephus tells us, that the Jews began to return 
from Babylon in the seventieth year : therefore they 
began to return before the seventy years had fully 
expired ; and therefore the years themselves must 
have expired after their arrival in Palestine, which 
is precisely what my hypothesis supposes them to 
have done *. 

(3.) Mr. 

Slaving told us this, lie immediately afterwards speaks of the 
second month of the second year of their coming to the house o£ 
God, thereby plainly intimating that another year had com- 
menced. This being the case, the seventh month must have been 
in the Jirst year of their coming to the house of God : and, 
since Ezra mentions this seventh month after speaking of the 
Jirst year of Cyrus without specifying the commencement of 
i he second year of that prince, the seventy month must be that 
seventh month which fell out in the Jirst year of Cyrus. Com- 
pare Ezra i. J. iii. 1, 8, 

* Joseph. Ant. Jud. lib. xi. cap. 1. § 1. It may be object* 
ed, that Jeremiah speaks of the seventy years being accomplish- 
ed at or in Babylon, which, according to the present hypothe- 
sis, they were not (Jerera. xxix. 10.) — I reply, that the prophet 
liere plainly speaks of the seventy years in the round language 
of familiar conversation : for, in perfect strictness of speech, 
the Jews were not in Babylon seventy years complete according 
to any interpretation. Those* who make this period terminate 
in Babyfon with the enacting of the decree of Cyrus ? make it 
commence, ia Palestine with the capture of Jerusalem y The $e- 



( 34 ) 

(3.) Mr. Marshall's* third argument is deduced 
from the circumstance of the three years and a half 

being 

tenty years however are the period of the desolation of Judah and 
Jerusalem, reckoned from the time when that desolation com- 
menced to the time when it began tt) cease. Both the city and 
the country might be a considerable time in recovering from 
their desolate state ; but the seventy years expired, when they 
began to recover: and no fixed era seems to mark this begin- 
ning more naturally and more definitely than the first celebra- 
tion of one of the great festivals in the capital city after an inter- 
ruption of many years and immediately after the arrival of the Jem 
in their own country. 

I have frequently wondered, that Dr. Prideaux should ima- 
gine, that Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years received a 
triple accomplishment in three different periods of seventy years 
each, when we are so plainly told in Scripture, that the in- 
strument, which produced its accomplishment, was the decree 
of Cyrus, and when we are moreover informed, that, in the 
first year of Darius, shortly before the enacting of this decree, 
Daniel had calculated the seventy years to have nearly expired 
(See Ezra i. I. and Dan. ix. 1, 2.). Such being the case, we 
surely have no right to look out for other imaginary accom- 
plishments of the prophecy according to our own contriving. 
I perfectly agree with Dr. Blayney, that the two periods of 
seventy years each, mentioned in Zechar. i. 12, and vii. 5, have 
bo sort of connection with the seventy years foretold by Jere- 
miah : neither does Zechariah himself say any thing, which 
necessarily leads us to suppose that he alludes in either case to 
Jeremiah's seventy years (Sec Blayncy's trans, of Jeremiah and 
Zechariah in loc.) One mischief, that has resulted from Dr. 
Prideaux's scheme of a triple accomplishment, is the applica- 
tion 



( 35 ) 

being described as containing 1260 days, which is 
at the rate of 360 days to the year. Now three 
years and a half are a collective sum, and yet con- 
tain no more than 1260 days : hence he infers, that 
490 years, being also a collective sum, ought to be 
estimated as containing no more than 490 times 
360 days. 

I have already in part answered this argument by 
observing, that, if the ancient year used by the Jews 
consisted of 12 months of 30 days each and of 5 
supernumerary days added at the end of the year 
and considered as belonging to none of the months; 
the year, when reckoned by months (as St. John 
reckons it # ), must then be estimated as containing 

tion of the same principle to the prophecies which treat of the 
VZGQ years. It has been argued, that, as the prophecy of the 
seventy years received different successive accomplishments^ we 
may expect that the 1260 years have more than one era of 
Commencement and termination. The conclusion might per- 
haps have been warranted from analogy, if the premises^ 
whence it is drawn,, had been well founded. But, since Ezra 
tells us that Jeremiah's seventy years expired in the first year 
of Cyrus, and since no intimation is given in Scripture that 
they likewise expired at other eras, I can consider the hypo- 
thesis of Dr. Prideaux in no other light than that of a mere 
gratuitous unproved assumption, and can never allow it to be 
the basis of an analogical argument. See Prideaux's Cormecte 
Part i, B. iii, 

* Rev. xi. 4* 



ftO 



( 36 ) 

no mdre than 360 days : consequently, if he as- 
cribed 42 precise months to three years and a half' 
he must likewise ascribe to them 1260 precise days, 
because each of those months contained exactly 30 
days : and, in fact, such a mode of reckoning would 
naturally arise from the year being reputed to con- 
tain no more than 360 days. I may now further 
observe, that, if the ancient year of the Jews con- 
tained singularly no more than 36*0 days, and if the 
deficiency in collective sums were made up by inter- 
calations ; it is easy to conceive, from the arbitrary 
and irregular mode in which the Sanhedrim inter- 
calated, that any given three years and a half, being 
a very short collective period, might really contain 
no more than 1260 days, while a longer collective 
period could not possibly have been suffered to roll 
on without being extended to its proper amount by 
the requisite intercalations. We can as little argue 
with certainty from a very short collective period 
into which no intercalation might be introduced, as 
-we can from the amount of a single individual yean 
If Mr. Marshall could have shewn, that, not three 
years and a half, but 80 or 100 years, of 360 days 
each, had been suffered to elapse without any inter- 
calary regulation, he would then indeed have ad- 
duced a most formidable argument. 

(4.) He further attempts to prove his point by 
pursuing another train of reasoning — In the time of 

Noah, 



( 37 ) 

Noah, five months were equal to 150 days; there- 
fore each month must have contained 30 days. 
But, in the time of Solomon, exactly twelve pur- 
veyors made provision throughout the year for the 
royal household, each man his month : therefore, 
since each month contained 50 days, twelve such 
months or the whole year must have contained 360 
days — Now, throughout the whole Bible no men- 
tion is made of intercalation ; and moreover any 
intercalation of the Ve Aclar or thirteenth month of 
the Sanhedrim would necessarily have disturbed the 
economical arrangement of Solomon, because that 
prince employed no more than twelve purveyors 
throughout the year : therefore we may conclude, 
that such an expedient was formerly altogether un- 
known — But, if each year contained exactly 360 
days, and if the expedient of intercalation was never 
resorted to ; it will follow, that, in the ancient 
Jewish chronology, the year both singularly and 
collectively contained no more than 360 days. 

This argument, though not destitute of specious- 
ness, is founded on a position by no means proved ; 
namely, that the old Jewish year did really contain 
no more than 360 days. I have already intimated, 
that this position is not established by the circum- 
stance of five Noetic months being equal to loO 
days, because this would equally be the case, whe- 
ther the year consisted of no more than 1£ months 

of 



( 38 ) 

of 50 days each, or of 12 months of SO days each 
and Jive additional days not considered as belonging 
to any month. And I think it as little established 
by the arrangement of Solomon's purveyorships, 
That prince merely considered the convenience of 
his household ; vand it was a matter of perfect indif- 
ference to him, whether his artificial year, which for 
the purposes of division consists of a number pecu- 
liarly convenient, coincided with the natural year or 
not, Matters would still go on smoothly; and each 
purveyor, knowing exactly the rotation of his tur% 
would be prepared to discharge his duty without 
having it in his power to complain that his month 
contained more days than those of some of his col- 
leagues. But we can as little conclude from this 
arrangement, that the entire Jewish year contained 
iio more than 360 days ; as any future chronologer 
could conclude, that the entire English year con^ 
tained only 364 days, from an arrangement (if any 
such were in existence) that 52 officers should suc- 
cessively be in waiting upon the king throughout 
the year, each man taking his week from the Sunday 
to the Saturday. 

4. The sum of that argument of Mr. Marshall, 
which I have just considered, amounts to this : the 
(indent Jewish year contained 360 days; no monthly 
intercalation was used, because Scripture is wholly 
silent inspecting it; therefore any collective sum of 

years 



( m ) 

years is equivalent only to the same sum of uninter- 
calated years of 360 clays each — As I think his pre- 
mises labour under a deficiency of proof, I deny his 
conclusion : yet the opinion advanced in the second 
step of the syllogism appears to be not unwarranta- 
ble. Let us invert his reasoning, and see whether 
the truth cannot be thus elicited. 

No mention is made in Scripture of intercalary 
months : therefore, since various festivals at parti- 
cular seasons are ordained with much minuteness of 
circumstance in the Levitical dispensation, the pro- 
bability is, that intercalary months, being wholly 
unnoticed, were not known to the more ancient 
Jews — The circumstance of five months being equal 
to 150 days, proves that each month contained 30 
days : and, since the year contained 12 such months, 
it must have contained 360 days ; but, whether it 
contained them simply, or with the addition of Jive 
supernumerary days not included in any one of the 
months, is not positively declared— If then there 
were no monthly intercalations, the Jewish year 
must have been, collectively no less than singularly, 
of one or other of these forms : that is to say, a se- 
ries of Jewish years must inevitably have been equal 
either to a corresponding series of years qf 360 days 
each, or to a corresponding series of years of 365 
days each. 

So 



( 40 ) 

So far is certain : the question therefore is 3 phich 
of the two forms was that of the ancient Jewish year. 
Mr. Marshall maintains, that the first was : I am 
rather inclined to maintain, that the second was ; 
and to maintain this position in such a manner, as 
to believe that a leap-day was occasionally interca- 
lated to keep the seasons in their proper places. 

My reasons for adhering to such an opinion are 
the following. 

(1.) From the very time of the original institu- 
tion of the Passover, the observance of it was fixed 
to the fourteenth day of the first month Nisan, 
otherwise called Abib, or the month of green ears, 
at which time in Judea the harvest w r as beginning : 
and, in a similar manner, the feast of tabernacles 
was fixed to the middle of the seventh month Tisri 3 
and to the time of the ending of the vintage. * 

Now these feasts were thus observed — The Pass- 
over they celebrated on the fourteenth day of Nisan 
or Abib, by killing the paschal lamb : the fifteenth 
day was the first of the days of unleavened bread, 
and was ordained to be kept as a sabbath : and, on 
the morrow after this sabbath, as being the begin- 
ning of the barley-harvest; they were directed to 
brin£ a sheaf of the first-fruits for a wave-offering 
before the Lord — The feast of tabernacles they ce- 
lebrated on the fifteenth day of Tisri: and this fes- 
tival was also called the feast of in-gathering, be- 
cause 



( 41 ) 

cause it was observed after they had gathered in 
their corn and their wine, 

If then, as Mr. Marshall maintains, the ancient 
Jewish year consisted of no more than 360 days, 
without the addition of five supernumerary days and 
without being regulated by monthly intercalations 
(of which there is no mention in Scripture); it is 
evident, that all the months, and among them the 
months Ablb and Tisri, must have rapidly revolved 
through the several seasons of the year. Whence 
it is equally evident, since the Passover and the 
feast of tabernacles were fixed, the one to the four- 
teenth day of Ablb, and the other to the fifteenth 
day of Tisri, that they must similarly have revolved 
through the seasons. 

Such a revolution of the great festivals must ne- 
cessarily have taken place, if Mr. Marshall's hypo- 
thesis be well founded ; inasmuch as, without any 
intercalations or additions, it assigns precisely 360 
days to the Jewish year, collectively as well as singly. 
This being undeniably the case, it may be asked, 
how would it be possible to observe the ordinances 
of the Law when the months A bib and Tisri had 
passed into opposite seasons of the solar year? 
How could the Jews, in the climate of Judea, offer 
the first-fruits of their harvest after the Passover, 
when the month A bib, in which it was celebrated, 
had passed into autumn or winter 0 And how 

could 



( 42 ) 

•sonic! they observe the feast of tabernacles, as a 
feast of the in-gathering of their corn and their wine, 
in the month Tisri, when that month had passed 
into spring or summer? It is plain, that, unless 
I A bib and Tisri always kept their places in the solar 
year, unless Abih were always a vernal month, and 
Tisri an autumnal month, the passover and the feast 
of tabernacles could not have been duly observed : 
whence it is no less plaim that the ancient Jews 
could not have reckoned by years of 360 days each 
without some expedient to make those years fall in 
with solar years. Since therefore we know that 
their year consisted of 12 months of 30 days each, 
and since no mention is made in Scripture of any 
intercalary month ; I conclude, that, like the Egyp- 
tians, they added to the end of their year five super- 
numerary days. 

(2.) As the passover and feast of tabernacles 
could only be celebrated either by solar years or by 
years made equivalent to solar years, so the period 
of years between jubilee and jubilee must by some 
expedient or another have been made equal to the 
game period of solar years. The Levitical weeks 
of years all began from the first day of the month 
Tisri; and, in the middle of this month, as I have 
just observed, the feast of tabernacles was cele- 
brated, which fixed it to the autumnal season of the 
solar year. This being the case, a period, reckoned 

from 



( 43 ) 

from autumn to autumn, must necessarily be equal 
to a period of the same number of solar years *. 

(3.) The 430 years of the sojourning of the chil- 
dren of Israel must plainly be computed in the same 
manner. The celebration of the passover was or- 
dained on the fourteenth day of the first month, 
which was called Nisan or A bib ; and, on the fok 
lowing day, or the fifteenth, the children of Israel 
left the land of Egypt. Upon this circumstance 
the inspired historian makes the following remark- 
able observation. " Now the sojourning of the, 
• £ children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four 
" hundred, and thirty years. And it came to pass 
■ e at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, 
" even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all 
" the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of 
" Egypt. It is a night to be much observed unto 
" the Lord for bringing them out from the land of 
" Egypt : this is that night of the Lord to be ob- 
" served of all the children of Israel in their gene- 
" rations f." It appears then, that precisely at the 
end of the 430 years even to the very day, precisely 
on the fifteenth day of the first month, the month 
(as it was styled) of green ears, the children of Is* 

* See Levit. xxv. 8 — 11. Dent. xxxi. 10. Prideaux's 
Connection. Part i. b. v. p. 203, Calmet's Dictionary. Voc, 
Jubilee — Feast of tabernacles, 

| Exocl, xii. 40 5 41, 4?, 

rael 



( 44 ) 

rael quitted the land of Egypt. But this month 
Ablb is fixed to a particular season of the solar 
year ; because, immediately after the celebration of 
the passover on its fourteenth day, the first-fruits of 
the harvest were appointed to be offered unto the 
Lord. Its very name indeed, the month of green 
ears, proves that it did not circulate through the 
year, as Mr. Marshall's hypothesis necessarily sup? 
poses : for, had it circulated, that name must, dur- 
ing by far the greater part of its circulation, have 
been absurdly improper. It is plain therefore, from 
the circumstance of the fifteenth day of the first 
month being specified as the very day after the ex- 
piration of the 430 years, and from the declaration 
that the deliverance out of Egypt took place exactly 
at the end of 430 years even to this very day the 
fifteenth day of the first month, that the first day of 
those 430 years must necessarily be likewise the fif- 
teenth day of the same month Abib or Nlsan, This 
being allowed, it is equally plain, that the 430 years 
must either be solar years or collectively equivalent 
to the same number of solar years ; because by no 
other computation could the first day of the first 
vear and the first day of the four hundred and 
thirty first year be alike the fifteenth day of a month, 
fixed, as its very name of Ablb implies, to the spring 
season of the year. Hence chronologers, with much 
reason, compute backward from the Exodus to the 

call 



( 45 ) 

call* of Abraham 430 solar years: because so lcn<* 

J J o 

was the period of the sojo timings of the children of 
Israel, either in their own persons or in those of 
their patriarchal progenitors, to the time of their 
migrating from the land of Egypt : and hence they 
with equal justice place the 400 years predicted to 
Abraham immediately by God himself* (which ne- 
cessarily conterminate with the 430 years) so as to 
commence 30 years after the commencement of the 
430 years t. 

(4.) In 

*' Gen. xv. 13. 

t " Ablactato Isaaco, fecit Abraham convivium magnum* 
Et videns Sarah filiura Hagarfe /Egyptian ludentcm, vei po- 
f tius cleludentem et contumcliose tractantcm (sicut Gen, 
u xxxix. 14. vox ca accipitur), imo persequentem (ut Gal.. 
u iv. 29. cxplicat Apostolus), Isaacum ; ut qui sibi, primoge- 
" n1tura6 ratipne, haereditatem deberi jactitaret; dixit Abra- 
" hamo, Ejice ancillam istam et jilium ejus, non cnim juturus est 
" Jtceres Jilius ancil/a- istias cum jilio meo, cum Isaaco. Quod 
" licet aigcrrime. primum ille ferret, perfecit tamen, acccdente 
" jussu Dei, illi edicentis, In Isaaco mcabitur tibi semen (Geiu 
** x\i. S — 12. cum Rom. ix. 7, 8. et Heb. xi. 17, IS. ubi ob« 
t4 serva Isaacum Lac ratione unigenitum illius filium appclla- 
" turn). Inter Hebrcvos autem varia opinio est, asserentibus alii* 
" quinto anno ablactationis tempus statutum aliis duodecimum 
" annum vendicantibus. JS T os igitur y ut breviorem eligamus a?ta- 
" tern, post decern et octo annos Ismael supputavimus eject urn esse 
" eum matre ; inquit HieronymusJ Traditionibus Hebraicis in 
u Genesim. Unde ab hac electi seminis designatione et per- 
f? secutiune (ut appellat Apostplus), quam a iilio /Egyptite 

" sustinujt, 



( 46 ) 

(4.) In short, if the lunar year of 360 days werd 
used by the ancient Jews without either the requi- 
site addition of supernumerary days at the end of 
each year, or the due occasional intercalation of a 
month, it will be impossible to reconcile their his- 
tory with the histories of other ancient nations con- 
nected with them. The duration of the several 
reigns of their king;s both over Judah and Israel is 
regularly specified, and the contemporaneousness 
of those kings with the neighbouring sovereigns is 
likewise specified, as must obviously be the case iri 
the history of any people. Consequently, as it was 
well observed by Lyranus, those, who represent the 
Hebrews as computing collectively by lunar years, 
dislocate the whole chronological series of the Old 
Testament % 

5. The 

5S sustinuit, 400 annorum initium compliires dedticunt; qiii- 
u bus Abraham! semen perigrinum futurum in terra non sua 
" et affiigendum Deus praedixerat (Gen. xv. 13. Acts vii. 6\). 
u ' In exitu enim Israelitarum exiEgypto eos terminandos esse, 
" ex Gen. xv. 14. et Exod. xii. 35, 36'. inter se collatis liquet. 
" Quanquam Glossa ordinaria ex Aiigustino initium annorum 
" istorum ad ipsam nativitatem Isaaci referat : ac si 405 
" annos, summa solida et numero rotundo, 400 Scriptura dis- 
" erit/' Usser. Annal. in ann. A. C. 1S91. 

* 6i Quia scriptura passim non lunaribus, sed communibus 
" etsolaribus, utiturannis; et quia, licet Hebrsei uterentur 
" annis lunaribus,' tamen tertio quoque anno, ex diebus qui 
Q, " excreverantj 



( 47 ) 

5. The sum of the matter is this. Since no men- 
tion is made in Scripture of intercalary months, and 
since therefore the probability is, that they were not 
used by the more ancient Jews • I conclude, in op- 
position to Mr. Marshall, that, if such months were 
not used by them, their year must have consisted, 
not of 12 months of 50 days each only (as that au-/ 
thor maintains it to have consisted, collectively no 
less than singularly), but of 12 months of 30 days 
each and jive supernumerary days not included in 
any of the months: and I moreover conclude, that 
an intercalation of a day must have been occasion- 
ally used to preserve the seasons in their proper 
places. 

6. But, whether the more ancient Jews used this 
year or a year of 360 days corrected by monthly 

'* excrcvcraiit, mensem addebant, et sic per embolismos annos 
f4 lunares sequabant solaribus, turn ut chronicis et chronologize 
" aliarum gentium se suaque accommodarent, turn propter 
" Pascba et Pentecosten ; ut ilia congruo tempore a lege sta« 
rt tuto, puta post aequinoctiiim vernum 14 to die priini mensis 
f* semper celebrarent: alioqui enim, cum annus lunaris minor 
" sit solari, ssepe Pascha celebrare debuissent vel ante asqui- 
" noctium vernum, vel alio mense quam primo. Unde Lyra-* 
" nus, qui origine fuit Hebraeus et in Hebraeorum rebus ver- 
" satissimus, FaUimtur, inquit, qui put ant Hebrccos talibus 
*' (lunaribus) anrris usos aliquando ; alioquin tuta ceteris instru- 
u menti series vacittat. Idem assent Galatinus. lib. iv. c. 14. ,? 
Cornel, a Lapid. Comment, in Dan. ix. 25. 

intercalations 



( 43 ) 

intercalations (and one or the other they must havd 
used), is a matter of very little moment to the pre- 
sent question. Their two great festivals, being fixed 
both to a particular month and to a particular sea- 
son of the year, prove (as it appears to me) beyond 
a possibility of doubt, that by some expedient or 
other the months Abih and Tisri were always made 
to fall out in spring and autumn : and, if this be evi- 
dent, as it must be from the mode of celebrating 
those two great festivals, then it will follow, equally 
beyond a possibility of a doubt, that, whatever 
might be the form of a single Jewish year, a series 
of them taken collectively must have been equal to 
a corresponding series of natural solar years. Hence 
I conclude, that the 490 years of the seventy weeks 
are in effect and collectively 490 solar years, and 
not (as Mr. Marshall contends) 490 years of 360 
days each, or about 483 solar years. 

III. Although, as I have just intimated, it is 
sufficient for my purpose to have shewn that a se- 
ries of Jewish years, whatever might be their indi- 
vidual form, was collectively equal to a correspond- 
ing series of solar years, it may not be amiss at the 
close of the present discussion to adduce from wri* 
ters, who have considered the subject as fully as 
Mr. Marshall, some additional remarks on the 
chronology of the Hebrews. 

1, "Abra- 



( 49 ) - 

i; " Abraham, who was a practical astronomer," 
says Mr. Jackson, " brought the Chaldean year 
" into Canaan, which was the Noachic and ormi- 
" nal year of the world : but, as he settled amongst 
" the Canaanites, he probably used their year, 
" which commenced about the autumnal equinox, 
" as Taaut or Thoth, the son of Misor or Mizraim, 
" had settled it in Phenicia and afterwards in 
" Egypt, according to the history of Sanchoniatho. 
" However Abraham, no doubt, preserved the me- 

mory of the epoch of the Chaldean year in his 
" family and amongst his posterity. When the 
" Israelites went into Egypt, they used the Egyp- 
" tian year, which had the same epoch with the 
u Phenician : but, at their exodus, they were com- 
" manded by God to begin the year at the original 
" epoch of it, which was the vernal equinox ; and 
" to use this epoch only in their sacred institutions, 
" their feasts and fasts, and all religious matters : 
" but in civil affairs they still retained the epoch of 
<c the Egyptian year. So the ecclesiastical year of 
" the Hebrews began at the vernal equinox, and all 
" their sacred rites were regulated by it : and the 
" Sabbatical and Jubiiean years began at the au- 
" tumnal equinox. The months were counted from 
" the vernal epoch of the year only. Hence the 
" month A bib or Nisan, which before was the se- 
" venth month, was reckoned, by God's command 

E to 



( so ) 

Ci to Moses, the first month of the year : and that, 
" which had been called the first, was thenceforth 
" called the seventh. Thus the Chaldee Para- 
" phrast, on 1 Kings viii. 2, says, the month Etha- 
f mm, which by the ancients was called the first i 
" is now called the seventh. 

. " This account of the old and new year of the 
<c Hebrews is evident from Scripture. In ExocL 
" xxiii. 16, the seventh month ; in which was cele- 
a brated the feast of the ingathering of all the 
"fruits of the land, and in which they dwelt in 
" tabernacles seven days counted from the fifteenth 
/4 day inclusive, is said to be in the end of the year: 
P and so in Deut. xxxi. 10. The same feast is 
" said, Exod. xxxiv. 22, to be at the revolution 
" (Tecuphath). of the year ; that is, the cardinal 
" point, when the old year began at the autumnal 
" equinox ; and which was the seventh month from 
" the vernal equinox, which was the epoch of the 
f new ecclesiastical year. The Greek interpreters 
" render Tecuphath the dividing or middle of the 
" year # . And so it was : for the feast of taber* 
" nacles for seven days, immediately after the in- 
" gathering of all the fruit of the land, was ap- 
" pointed to begin on the fifteenth day of the se- 
" venth month f ; and this was exactly the middle 



f Levit. xxiii., 34, 44. 



( 51 ) 

" of the yea?, ot six months from the fifteenth deif 
" of the first month Abib or Nisan, which was the 
u first day of the feast of unleavened bread y with 
u which the year began. 

" Now it may hence be inferred, that the eccle- 
** siastical, as well as the civil, year of the Jews 
" was solar, and not lunar : and, had the months 
11 been lunar, there would be more than six of them 
" from the Tecuphath or cardinal point of the veiv 
iC nal, to the Tecuphath of the autumnal equinox j 
" nor could the Tecuphath of the seventh month be 
" the middle of any but the solar yean Besides, 
" as the Egyptian year both for religious and civil 
" use was solar only, the Hebrew year would natu- 
" rally be solar also, unless it was by express corrh 
" mand from God made lunar; of which there is 
u no testimony or evidence. It is likewise proba- 
" ble, that the fifteenth day of the month Abib or 
<c Nisan commenced with the sun's entrance into' 
et the vernal equinoctial point of the zodiac, to 
" which the year was fixed. When the Israelites 
" went into Egypt, they knew no other than the 
<tf Chaldean lunisolar year of 360 days, which Abra- 
• ham brought into Canaan, and which probably 
u was the same with the Phenician and Egyptian 
" year, but commenced from a different epoch 6 
" Whether any, or what, intercalation was then 
'* used to reduce it nearer to the tropical year, is 

k % " not 



( 52 ) 

" not known *. But, not long after the time that 

" the Israelites were come into Egypt, it was dis- 

e< covered there hy the Egyptian priests, that the 

<c solar year consisted of 365 days : and five inter- 

ec calary days were thenceforth added in their ca- 

" lendar at the end of the last month of the year, 

" This is related by Africanus or Syncellus, from 

" the Egyptian annals, to have been done in the 

" reign of Assis, the last shepherd king, who began 

u to reign in the year before Christ 1772. This 

" improved Egyptian year the Israelites brought 

" with them out of Egypt ; and Moses, by God's 

u command, changed the epoch of it from the au- 

" tumnal to the vernal equinox : and we may con- 

<c elude, that the five intercalary days were added 

" by Moses at the end of the twelfth month. 

* That some method must have been used to reduce this 
year to the solar form either individually or collectively, if it 
were used by Abraham, seems to me to be manifest from the 
circumstance of the 430 years of the sojournings of the chil- 
dren of Israel being said to have been fulfilled even to a day. on 
the fourteenth day of the first month ; which,, as its name Abib 
-implies, being fixed to a particular season of the year, could; 
not have circulated. If then 430 years be reckoned from the 
fifteenth of one Abib to the fifteenth of another Abib, they must 
necessarily be either solar years, or years collectively equiva- 
lent to solar years : consequently, if Abraham used the year 
of 360 days, he must either have added five days to the end of 
each year, or occasionally have intercalated it by the addition 
of a month. 

The; 



( 53 ) 

" The memorials of the two Tecuphaths, or heads 
** of the year, the one at the vernal, the other at the 
" autumnal, equinox, were celebrated by two fes- 
tm tivals : the first, by the feast of the passover and 
" unleavened bread, on the fifteenth day of the first 
" month ; the second, by the feast of tabernacles *, 
" which began on the fifteenth day of the seventh 
" month * as the fifteenth day of the first month 
" Abib was the first day of unleavened bread. The 
" Jewish year, both sacred and civil, was solar only, 
" consisting of 365 days, and was fixed to the two 
" equinoctial points of the zodiac. This year is 
" undoubtedly used by Moses in his history of the 
" creation and of the genealogies of the patriarchs 
" both before and after the flood. And, as there 
" is not in the law of Moses any mention of a lunar 
" year at all, or of any intercalations of the sacred 
" year, but only of the beginning of the year being 
" transferred from the autumnal to the vernal equi- 
" nox, we may infer with great certainty, that the 
" year instituted by Moses was a fixed solar year ; 
" and that the passover was fixed to the fourteenth 
u day of the first month ; and all the other festivals 
u and religious institutions were also fixed to the 
4i same immoveable days of the year as well as 
" months, without any regard, as far as appears, 

* Levit. xxiii. 34. Numb. xxix. 12» 

« to 



( 54 ) , 

to the new or full moons. And if, as Maimo* 
u nides and the modern Jews tell us, the last month 

Adar was frequently intercalated (as a lunar year 
" required) to bring the fourteenth or fifteenth day 
" of the first month Nisan to the cardinal point of 
AC the vernal equinox, or after it : if any such inter- 
M calations had been used by Moses qy in the an- 
" cient times of the Jewish economy, this so re- 
" markable alteration of the course of the year, 
■ 6i from the solar universally used, to the lunar no 
^ where known or used in the time of Moses, that 
" we find, or long after, must have been somewhere 
f< taken notice of : and the intercalary months would 
" have been mentioned and settled, to avoid bring- 
" ing confusion into th.ir religious observances. 
%t On the other hand, if the year was merely solar, 
u and the Chodesh> so often mentioned in the writ- 
lc ings of Moses, meant always the month only, as 
€C it undoubtedly in generaj does, without any re- 
" ference to or intimation of the moon or a lunar 
V month distinct from the solar which was uniform 
" and equable, then all is easy : and the fourteenth 
sl day of the first Chodesh or month would be a 
(< fixed point of the year and kept immoveable by 
f( the intercalation* of a day in about four years 
^ added to the other five intercalary days ; which 
" was the most ancient method of intercalating the 
# solar year. 



( 55 ) 

" It is probable, that the Jews borrowed their 

" lunar year from the Greeks, many ages after the 

(i time of Moses, and not before they were subject 

fC to them: and then intercalary months became 
" necessary ; and were added as the season of the 

" spring and the ripening of the barley harvest re- 

" quired, which was to be reaped in the first month 

" which commenced at the new moon, that the first 

" day of the passover might be celebrated at the 

" time of the full moon. This month was called 

" Abib* from the earing of corn, and was the 

" month in which they came out of Egypt. If the 

ft corn happened not to be ripe enough to reap be- 

" fore the sixteenth day of that month, when the 

" first fruits were offered at the passover on the 

" second day of unleavened bread; which was the 

" sixteenth day of the month f, an intercalary 

" month was added after the last month of the 

" year, thafr the barley harvest might be ready to 

" reap at the passover. But this was changing the 

" ordinance of Moses by putting one month in the 

" place of another : for the intercalated month 

u threw all the months forward ; and so Nisan^ the 

" first month, possessed the place of the second 5 

*' and so on. Rabbi Moses Maimonides tells us > 

* Exod. xii, 2. xiii. 4, xxxiv. IS. Deut. xvi. 1. 
t £*vit. xxiii. 6, 9, 10, 11, If 

" that 



( S6 ) 

" that the intercalary year was instituted for three 
" reasons. The first was on account of the equi- 
" nox, that is, to bring it to the fifteenth day of the 
£< month Nisan or before-; so, if the equinox was 
" like to happen on the sixteenth day or later, an 
" intercalary month was added before it. A se- 
u cond reason was on account of the corn, that it 
might be ripe at the passover, when it was to be 
" reaped and the first fruits to be offered. The 
" third reason was on account of the fruit or ber- 
" ries of trees, which was then to be gathered # * 
? Morinus cites an ancient Jewish writer, called 
" Rabbi Eliezer, who (he thinks) was contempo- 
" rary with St. Paul, to shew that the intercalary 
" year depended chiefly on the winter solstice; 
" and, if it fell on the twentieth day of the month 
" Tebetk (December) or later, they intercalated the 
" year of course, concluding the corn harvest could 
" not naturally be ready to reap by the fifteenth of 
" Nisan : but, if the solstice happened sooner, then 

* " Tribus de causis annus intercalaris instituebatur. Pri- 
' mo, propter sequinoctium. Deinde, propter terra fruges. 
' Textio, propter arborum baccas : ut, si ex tabularum ra- 
' tione concilium intelligent aequinoctium, aut dccimo efc 
' sexto die Nisan futurum esse, aut etiam posterius, alteram" 
£ anao mensem Adar add e ret ; ut cum Pascha adcsset frugum 
' maturitajs : quae causa quidem cum esset, annus constitue- 
* batur intercalaris, nec ulla causa quaerebatur alia." Tract, 
e ration, intercal. c. iv. p. 356", 357» 

" they 



( m i 

ff they had regard to the ripening of the com and 
" fruit of trees, which, if they proved more back- 
" ward than common, occasioned the year on their 
" account to be intercalated, so that sometimes 
*' c they intercalated two years together*. This 
" shews, that, after the Jews used lunar months, 
e " their intercalations could not be regular, because 
" they annually depended both on the day of the 
" month on which the winter solstice fell, which 
' c day was moveable, and on the maturity of the 
f f barley harvest in the sixteenth day of Nisan 7 
" which was sometimes before and sometimes after 
" the vernal equinox; and yet the passover was 
" fixed to the fourteenth day of the month Nisan. 
" The Jews, who first used the lunar months, seem 

* " Intercalant annum super Thecupkas, modo Thecvpha 
u contigerit a vicesirao die mensis Tebeth, et infra. Mo?imis 
u adds, Si solstitium hybernum commissum fuerit vicesimo die 
" mensis Tebeth (Decembris), ve\ posthasc, intercalatur annus, 
" nulla habita spicarum et frugum ratione: nam turn certum 
" est ex consueto naturae ordine ista non satis matura fore, 
" ut decima quinta Nisaji spicarum manipulus Deo offeratur. 
" Si vero solstitium hybernum citfus committatur, turn frugum 
" ratio habetur, et intercalatio fit, ambas si serotinas fuerint. 
/J Hinc nonnunquam apud eos duobus annis continuis intercala- 
" batur. Fundamentum et clavem intercalationis propter 
" Thecupham posteriores Judaei a decima sexta. Nisan de- 
ft duxerunt: sed priores a vicesima Tebeth/ 1 In Pentateuch. 
Saman Exercit, i, p. 3$, 40, 51, 52. 

5 ? t 9i 



( 58 ) 

^ to have principally minded to make the new mooix 
u of Nisan that which was nearest to the vernal 
ci equinox, whether before or after it; that the 
u passover might fall on the full moon, which was 
KU either at or after it. And, as the use of lunar 
u months made the keeping of the passover very 
" irregular, we may with the greatest reason con- 
** elude that the original Jewish year and months 
both before and after their exodus were solar 
u only — ■ 

" In the intercalary year, the thirteenth month, 
m called Ve-Adar, which was a second Adar of 2,9 
I * days*, was added after Adar ; which then had 
" 30 days, and made the year 384 days. In a 
** cycle of 19 years they must have seven interca- 
6t lary months to bring the fifteenth of Nisan to the 

* " Qui annus fiebat uno mense Iongior, is intercalaris ap- 

u pellabatur : sed nullus addebatur unquam anno alius quam 
a mensis Adar, Itaque anno intercalari menses Adar bini 

u continuabantur, atque iidem Adar -primus et Adar secundus 

" dicebantur. Quid ita vero ? nimirum ut haberetur una 

il cum messe Pascha, quippe cum in Lege sit, Obsercato mcn~ 

u sent nQimrum frugum ; hujus enim verbi vis ea fuit, ut tem- 

" poris obscrvandi rationem teneres earn, quae mensem hunc 

lt ad messem adducerct: atqwe nisi alterum anno mensem 

■** Adar adderes, turn Pascha hybernis turn aestivis accideret 

« temporibus." Maimon, de rat. intercal. c. iv. p. 356. 

u Anno intercalari, quoniam Adar numerantur duo. primus 

« eorum sit plenus, alter cavus." c. viii. p. 376\ 

" equinoctial 



( 59 ) 

w equinoctial point, as the law required : and there* 
" fore, if they followed in their lunar year the cycle 
P of Meton of 19 years, as some Jewish and many 
" Christian writers suppose, they could keep the 
<( passover, as the law required, on the fifteenth of 
" Nisan and at the equinox, once only in the space 
■ c of 19 years. Had the Jews, when they used the 
" lunar year, intercalated it with sometimes ten and 
" sometimes eleven days after the twelfth month 
" annually, they would have always kept the fif- 

teenth of Nisan to the vernal equinox, which was 
• e the original institution of Moses. But, as they 
f* thought they ought not to celebrate the passover 
fc till the corn was ripe and the berries of trees were 

ready for gathering, although the equinox hap- 
M pened before the sixteenth day of Nisan; if these 
" were not then ripe, they intercalated a whole 
" month # ? 

" The intercalated years in the Jewish cycle of 
u 19 years were, as Maimonides relates f, the 

* " Jam si seges esset tardior quam ut posset ad Paschz 
{i meti, nee dum baccas, quce solebant tempore paschali, pro- 
" fuderant arbores ; hac duplici de causa concilium itidem 
" annum faciebat uno mense longiorem, licet decimum et, 
" sextum diem mensis aequinoctium antecederet/' Maimqn. 
de rat. intercal. p. 357. The intercalary month had 29 or 3£ 
days, as the council pleased that appointed it* 

| De rat intercal. c, vi. p f 3/0. 

" third, 



( 60 ) 

^ third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seven- 
" teenth, and nineteenth **" 

£. Much the same remarks are made by Dr. Pri- 
deaux relative to the Hebrew mode of intercalating 
lunar years, when the use of those years was 
adopted. 

" The Jews had their common years perfectly 
ff lunar, consisting of twelve lunar months ; and so 
<c had the Greeks, only with this difference, that, 
" whereas the Jews' lunar months were strictly 

I cc lunar as being observed by the pkasis, the Greeks, 
iC mistaking a lunar month to consist exactly of 30 
* c days, in compounding their year of 12 of them, 
" made it amount to 360 days, which exceeded its 
" true astronomical measure almost 6 days. But, 
" besides the common years, they had also interca- 
" lated years intermixed with the common years, 
* 4 which reduced all to the solar form ; for, what 
" was defective of it in the common years, was 
" restored in the intercalated years. And this the 
Jews, as well as the Greeks, were necessitated to 
" by their festivals : for the Nisan of the Jewish 
" year, which began their ecclesiastical year, being 
" pinned down by their passover (which was always 
" celebrated in the middle of it) to the time of the 

| " beginning of their harvest; and the month of 

* Jackson's Chronol,. Antiq- VoL ii. p. 15 — 23. 



( m ) 

" Tisn, which began their civil year, being likewise 
" pinned down by the feast of tabernacles (which 
" was always celebrated in the middle of that 
u month) to the time of the ending of their vintage ; i 
" this necessitated them to fling in an intercalary 
" month, whenever their year fell short of these 
" seasons. And the Greeks were likewise neces- 
" skated to do the same thing for the sake of their 
" festivals, especially for the sake of their Olym- 
" piads. For, the fixed time for the celebration of 
41 those games being the first full moon after the 
" summer solstice, it always fell within the compass 
" of one lunar month, either sooner or later, in the 
" solar year : and, there being just four years be- 
u tween Olympiad and Olympiad, these neeessa- 
u rily made these years to be solar years ; and cy- 
" cles and rules of intercalation were invented of 
" purpose to bring them to it : and the same is to 
" be said of all other nations which used the like 
" form. Although they might measure their months 
" by the motion of the moon, they always regulated 
" their years according to that of the sun — All 
" among them,, that had lunar years, had also ki- 
" tercalated years to make amends for their de^ 
" fects : and therefore, whatsoever any of their 
" years might be in their singular numbers, tbey 
" were always solar in their collective sums"." 

* Prideaux's Connection, part i, b. v. p« 

3. Si? 



( 62 ) 

3. Sir Isaac Newton speaks to the same purpose* 
" The ancient year of the eastern nations consisted 
"of 12 months ; and every month, of 30 days s 

hence came the division of a circle into 360 de- 
" grees. This year seems to be used by Moses in 
c: his history of the flood, and by John in the Apo- 
* c calypse, where a time times and half a time, 42 
*■ months, and 1260 days, are put equipollent 
" But, in reckoning by many of these years together, 
*' an account is to be kept of the odd days which 
" were added to the end of these years. For the 
6i Egyptians added five days to the end of this year; 
* and so did the Chaldeans loner before the time of 
" Daniel, as appears by the era of Nabonassar : 
" and the Persian magi used the same year of 36i 
" days, till the empire of the Arabians. The an- 
u cicnt Greeks also used the same solar year of IS 
" equal months, or 360 days ; but every other year 
" added an intercalary month, consisting of 10 and 
" 1 1 days alternately *\" 

4. The same language is held by Dr. Blayney* 
* s From the very nature of the Jewish establishment 
44 it is abundantly evident, that, though they might 

have reckoned a year or two together as consist- 
? e ing of 12 lunar months, they never did nor could 
s£ have carried on the same kind of reckoning for 

* Observ. on Dan. chap, x. p. 137, 138. 

u any 



( 63 ) 

H any long continued series of years in succession, 
" A lunar year, consisting of 12 lunar months, or 
(i 354 days, falls short of the astronomical solar 
u year, with which the seasons return, by about 1 1 
m - days. Consequently, with those who compute 
i: their time by -such lunar years, the beginning of 
H their year must make a very quick circuit through 
" all the different seasons successively. But, 
" among the Jews, the beginning of their year was, 
u by the Mosaic constitutions, necessarily deter- 
" mined to one particular season. The month 
" Abib or Nisan, in which they came out of Egypt, > 
" was ordained to be unto them the beginning of 
" months, the first month of the year *. On the 
u fourteenth day of this month the paschal lamb 
" was to be killed f ; the fifteenth was the first of 
" the days of unleavened bread, and was to be kept 
<; as a sabbath or a day of holy rest, in which no 
" servile work was to be done J: and, on the mor- 
" row after this sabbath (%n hvlspot, rw agvptc* 
" \y\r\ <T zgVv xou futofln, says Josephus §), they were 
" directed to bring a sheaf of the first fruits for a 
" wave-offering before the Lord, to be accepted for 
¥ them. This was the beginning of their barley 
H harvest ; the day on which they first put the sicklfr 

* Exod, xii, 2. f Ver. 6. % Levit. xxiri. 6, 7. 
§ Ant, Jud. 1. iil c. 10. § 5. 

* tm 



( 64 ) 

^ to their com ; nor were they at liberty to tasie of 
" the fruits of their ground, neither bread, nor 
" parched corn, nor green ears, until they had 

* ££ brought this offering to their God*. From this 
u time they were required to number seven complete 
" weeks, and on the fiftieth day to offer a new meat- 
" offering unto the Lord of the Jirst fruits of their 
es wheat harvest f. Also, on the fifteenth day of 
" the seventh month, they were commanded to ob- 
" serve the feast of tabernacles, otherwise called 
" the feast of in-gathering, after that they had 
<£ gathered in their com and their wine %. Now 
*? it is obvious, that these ordinances could have 
" been observed but seldom at their appointed 
" times, had the beginning of the Jewish year been 
w as variable with respect to the seasons, as a course 
4i of lunar years would make it. For, in about six- 
u teen vears, each season would be changed for its 

i " opposite : autumn would be stept into the place 
i{ of spring; and the month Abib, instead of being 
" the month of green ears, as the name imports, 
" would fall in after all the fruits were already 
" housed in the barns. It is true, that, in order 
" to begin the year uniformly with the first day of 

* Levit. xxiii. 1Q— 14. 

f Levit. xxiii* 15, &c. Exod. xxiv. 22. 

| Compare Levit. xxiii, 39. Exod. xxiii. 16. Deut ; xvi. IS. 

" the 



( 65 ) 

" the 'moon, the Jews gave the name of a year 
" sometimes to 12 lunar months, and that for two 
" years successively ; in like manner as we for a 
" similar reason reckon three years together of 
" 365 days each, reserving the exceeding hours, as 
" they did the days, to be accounted for in an after 
" reckoning. Accordingly, the third year was sure 
" to be with them a kind of leap-year, by the in- 
" tercalation of an additional month, which they 
<£ called Ve-Adar : and thus, by repeated interca-t 
" lations duly made, their reckoning in the long 
" run was brought to correspond pretty nearly with 
(( solar computation, and the beginning of their 
" year to fall in much about the same season, and 
" at no great distance from the vernal equinox; 
" tv xpjw T8 \\iz xa&Wl«1o?, as Josephus * testi- 
" fiest" 

5. Mr. Davies has also some ingenious remarks 
respecting the length of the ancient year, particu- 
larly of the Noetic year, which he supposes to have 
been solar. 

" The early ages in general must have been ac~ 
" quainted with the solar period, which alone could 
be of use in the computation of years. For, 

* Ant. Jud. 1, iii. c. 10. § 5. 

■j- Blayncy's Dissert, on the prophecy of the screnfy weeks, 
p. S3, 34, 

F (£ while 



( 66 ) 

" while we deny them this knowledge, it is yet 
" granted that they had the use of cycles, by which 
" their defective years were adjusted to the course 
C£ of nature. If they knew the sum of 19, 30, or 
" 60 years, could they have been ignorant of the 
ci extent of one ? That their years were so adjust- 
" ed,. is evident ; for we find the same months con- 
" stantly fall about the same season. Hesiods 
" description * can be applied only to the depth of 
" winter, and therefore can have belonged only to 
" years, which, taken together, amounted to solar 
tc years. The Abib of Moses, or month of green 
" corn, as the name implies, must have constantly 
" returned after the vernal equinox from the first 
" time it received the name. And this name could 
" not have been new. It was not Egyptian, but 
" either Hebrew or Chaldaic : the Israelites had 
" therefore brought it with them into Egypt. It 
" had been known in the time of Abraham, For, 
" on the 14th of this month, the children of Israel 
" came out of Egypt ; and, on the self-same day y 
a 450 years before, their great ancestor Abraham 
" had begun his peregrination. The length of the 
" solar year then had been known from the days of 
u Shem, who survived the commencement of Abra- 
" ham's sojourning about 7<5 years. Had this year 

* My^k tovguuvaf k. r. X. E^y. |S. 3-22. 

" been 



( 67 ) 

" been unknown; had the Epagomena? or even the 
" Bissextile been omitted, the month of green corn 
" must, during that period of 430 years, have some- 
" times fallen in the beginning and sometimes in 
" the depth of winter. 

" The Egyptians claim the Epagomena and the 
" accurate computation of time, as inventions of 
" their own ancestors. This claim may be grant- 
" ed, if we take their own account of the inventor. 
" The first Thoth, amongst other things, calculated 
" the annual period. We learn from Manetho, the 
" celebrated Egyptian historian, who relates the 
" genuine traditions of his nation, that this Thoth 
" lived before the flood. For he left his discoveries 
" engraved upon certain columns, in the sacred 
" dialect and in hieroglyphic letters; and, after 
u the deluge (another) Thoth, the son of Agatha- 
" demon, transcribed these inscriptions into books ? 
" and placed them in the sanctuaries of the Egyp* 
" tian temples *. What discoveries do the Egyp* 
M tians boast of, which were not originally derived 
" from the great Thoth ? Those ancestors of the 
" Egyptians, who so eminently distinguished them- 
" selves, were then antediluvians, and consequently 
" the common parents of all other nations. 



Mancth. apud Euseb. Praep. Evan. lib. i. cap. 9» 

f % " Thoth 



( C8 ) 

u Thoth is said to have left 36,525 rolls of his 
u discoveries, by which the learned understand pe- 
" riods of time which he had calculated. I find by 
" Philo Judeus, that the ancient mystagogues re- 
" garded 100 as a perfect number; as the parts 
" which composed a perfect, whole, or as the num- 
" ber of units which constituted a complete series. 
" If we regard 100 parts as equal to a complete 
" diurnal revolution, then 36,525 parts will amount 
" to 365 days and 6 hours : or, if 100 years con. 
" stitute a perfect age, agreeably to Philo's appli- 
" cation of the number in the case of Abraham, 
" then 36,525 will be the diurnal revolutions com- 
" prehended in that age. This 1 consider as a more 
* c simple method of accounting for the number of 
" the Hermetic volumes, than by supposing a mul- 
" tiplication of cycles, which must imply much 
" 7nore than a true calculation of the solar pe~ 
" riod. 

" The Egyptians had years, as they are styled 
" by the Greeks, of 6, 4, or 3, months. They may 
" have divided the annual circle into seasons, by 
" inscribing some of their geometrical figures, as 
" the line or the triangle, or else the square touch- 
(i ing at the four cardinal points. Still the corn- 
" plete circle remained the same. Is there nothing 
(i in the Old Testament to confirm the antiquity of 
u this computation and the use of the Epagomence? 

Job 



( 69 ) . 

" Job speaks*' of days joined to the year, exclusive 
" of the number of the months. The Epagomence 
" appear then to have been known out of Egypt, 
" about the time when Abraham settled in the land 
" of Canaan, and during the life of the great patri- 
" archs. Let us consider Noah's year. In the 
" history of the deluge we have 5 successive months 
" consisting altogether of 150 days, or 30 days 
" each. I cannot conceive how such months could 
t( have been formed upon any lunar observation. 
" From the first day of the tenth month we have 
" an enumeration of Gl days, together with an un- 
" specified period of time, before the commence- 
" ment of the succeeding year. A complete year 
" in Noah's days could not then have consisted of 
" fewer than 12 such months or 360 days. But, 
" if with the best copies of the lxx and with some 
" other versions of credit we date the 6\ days from 
" the first of the eleventh month, this point must 
" be regarded as fully determined. There will be 
" 12 months and a few days over, during which 
" Noah waited for the return of the third dove, and 
" before he removed the covering of the ark on the 
"first day of the first month of the new year, 
" And there is the greatest probability in favour 
€i of this reading. Noah already knew that the 

* Job iii, 6, 

" waters 



( 70 ) 

u wafers were abated from off the earth. The 
" question was now, whether the earth produced 
" any thing, or whether the dove would be com- 
6< peiled by hunger to return to the ark. It is not 
" to be supposed, that, after having for some time 
" dispatched his weekly messengers, the patriarch 
u should now wait 29 days to make this experi- 
" ment ; 3 or 4 days must have been fully suffi- 
" cientfor the purpose. Would not these eircum- 
ci stances have pointed out some error in the text, 
" had no ancient version suggested and authorized 
" its correction? Upon this authority we have 12 
u months of 30 days each, and the Epagomence ; 
u or in all 365 days. But how are we to account 
u for the number and the precise length of the 
<c months? Perhaps something in the following 
" manner. The first periodical phenomenon, which 
<£ attracted the notice of our first parents, was pro- 
p bably the re-appearance of the moon after the 
il change. The iteration of the seasons, and the 
cc periodical approach and retreat of the sun with 
" which the seasons were obviously connected, 
< c must have also presented themselves to observa- 
> lion. It could not but be desireable and useful 
*' to ascertain the period of these changes. The 
*\ moon was resorted to 5 as the first means of com- 
H putation; and 12 lunations were found to come 
r - round nearer to the same point, than any other 

" number 
6 



( 71 ) 

" number : hence the 12 months. But these were 
" very soon discovered to be too short The object 
" in view was to obtain a knowledge of the return 
" of the sun and the seasons. His course was then 
" divided into 12 portions or signs, corresponding 
" with the number of moons in the first computa- 
" tion. Each of these portions was found to con- 
" sist of 30 days and a fraction : but, as it would 
" be inconvenient to divide a day, the whole num- 
6 £ ber was retained, and the surplus added to com- 
" plefce the year. 

" The first idea of a year must have been that of 
" the return of the sun and the seasons to the same 
" point. And, from the visible revolution of the 

sun, men must have first obtained months and 
" years thus constructed. Hence the Hebrew term 
" for a year T\M implies an iteration, repetition^ 
" a return to the same point. This, could have 
" been no other than the return of the sun and the 
" seasons. The sun was the great luminary, which, 
" by his regular course amongst the other lights or 
" stars, was appointed to measure years 

" If the moon was first resorted to for the pur- 
" pose of measuring the sun's course, it was soon 
" found inadequate to the purpose. Its revolution 
u had no connection with the return of the seasons. 



* Gen. i. 14, 16, 



( 72 ) 

" It only served to suggest a division of the sun's 
" course into 12 portions. In most nations, of 
cc which any ancient records and traditions are pre- 
* served, we find, that this division of the year and 
" the signs of the zodiac by which it was marked 
" were known from remote ages. The discovery 
il is claimed by several different nations, a circum- 
" stance which generally attends those inventions 
" which were derived from the common parents of 
t£ the nations. The history of the deluge is under- 
" stood to be recorded in the names and delinea- 
" tions of some of the constellations. It is not 
" improbable, that the Noachidse assigned to them 
" new names and representations, in order to com- 
*? memorate this awful event in the volume of the 
" heavens, which would be open to their posterity 
" in every region of the earth. But with no post- 
H diluvian nation can astronomical studies have ori- 
" ginated. Astronomical observations had been 
" preserved at Babylon for somewhat more than 19 
" centuries before the conquest of that city by Alex- 
u ander. They had therefore commenced from the 
u very time, when, agreeably to our chronology, the 
" sons of men first began to dwell in the land of 
Lf< Shinar. 

" Before their removal into that country, they 
il could have had no observations calculated for 
u the latitude of Babylon ; and their date from this 

" very 



( 73 ) 

" very era absolutely proves that the science was 
" not the discovery of the inhabitants, but that they 
** brought it with them from their former residence 
" amongst the mountains of Ararat, where the ante- 
" diluvian astronomy had already been adjusted to 
" the circumstances of time and place. An inves- 
" tfgatiori and discovery of the principles of the 
" science must necessarily have preceded a series 
" of just observations. 

" The antiquity of this study may be inferred 
" from the book of Job, where several stars and 
11 constellations are mentioned, in connection with 
" observations upon the seasons, and as parts of the 
" works of God which had been pointed out by 
<l the search of the great fathers of the human 
" race. 

" The Mosaical years from the creation cannot, 
u one with another, have fallen much short of solar 
u revolutions, which were evidently the measure of 
" calculation in the time of Noah : for the age of 
" this patriarch rather exceeds an average of the 
11 ages of his progenitors. 

u From their common ancestors then the several 
*' nations may have derived the rudiments of astro- 
" nomy and a pretty exact knowledge of the annual 
" period. Different societies may, for the regula- 
" tion of festivals and for various purposes, have 
fi employed lunar calculations, and reckoned by 

« the 



( 74 ) , , 

u the age of a moon which appeared after a certain 
" equinox or solstice, or after the rising of a certain 
" star; but such calculations were adjusted by cy- 
06 cles so as not materially to affect the truth of 
u chronology. If we find a people acquainted only 
£( with lunar months or only with years of 360 
" days, that people must have fallen, at some pe- 
u riod, into a state of rudeness far below the stand - 
e< ard of the primitive ages 

IV. From what has been said, we may, I think, 
conclude, that the Jews before and after the time 
of Mose% used the Chaldean year of 12 equal 
months of 30 days each with 5 supernumerary days 
added to the end of it, and that they continued this 
aboriginal practice most probably until they fell 
under the dominion of the Greek princes. Such an 
usage will account for the silence of Scripture rela- 
tive to intercalation ; and would, at the same time, 
preserve the great feasts fixed to the spring and the 
autumn, by occasionally inserting, as we are wont to 
do, an additional leap-day. After the power of the 
Greeks became paramount in Asia, they seem to 
have adopted from them the lunar year. This ne*- 
cessarily introduced the inconvenient system of 
monthly intercalation, and thus accounts for the apr 

* Celtic Researches. p 4 23—29. 

pearance 



( 75 ) 

pearance of the Rabbinical Ve-Adar, which is un- 
known in Scripture *, 

1. But, as I have before observed, whatever might 
be the length of a particular year among the more 
ancient Jews, this at least is absolutely certain: 
since the months Abib and Tisri were fixed by the I 
Levitical ordinances to the spring and the autumn, 
they plainly could not have circulated through the 
year (as Mr. Marshall's hypothesis necessarily re- 
quires) : but, if the Jews had used lunar months of 
any description without either the addition of su- 
pernumerary days or an intercalation of some kind, 
the months Abib and Tisri must have circulated : 
we know however, that they did not circulate : 

* The idea of Petavius is similar to this, though he thinks 
it probable that the Israelites paid some attention to the course 
of tbe moon even before the time of the Seleucidae. Seldert 
justly observes, that the Jewish year, when regulated by the 
Ve-Adar, was neither lunar nor solar; but that it perpetually 
fluctuated in length, in consequence, of the attempts to adjust 
the course of the moon to that of the sun : and he mentions a 
Hebrew tradition, that the children of Issachar were particu- 
larly skilful in such computations, insomuch that they were 
figuratively said to have ascended up to the firmament and to 
have brought it down with them for the use of man. But both, 
these authors agree, that the length of any number of Jewish 
years was virtually equal to fye length of the same number of | 
golar years. See Petav. Rationar. Temp. par. ii. L i. C. 6. 
and Selden, de ann© civil* vet. Jud. passim, but especially 
$, 1. 

therefore 



( 76 ) 

therefore the Jewish years mast, either by the yearly 
addition of supernumerary days or an occasional 
intercalation of a month, that is to say either singly 
or collectively, have been equal to solar years *. 

2. If this be proved, we must unavoidably con- 
clude, that the years of the seventy weeks are either 
| solar years, or collectively equal to solar years. 
Which of the two they are, is perfectly immaterial 
in a discussion of the prophecy, for the sum total 
will in each case be the same : but, when we con- 
sider that the more ancient Jews seem to have used 
the Egyptian year (as may be inferred from the si- 

* Mr. Marshall does not pretend to deny, that in the days 
of Daniel the year of 365 days was used, and likewise that the 
theory of intercalation was known : but he wishes to confine 
the use of such a year to the learned, and maintains that the 
only year then commonly known in any part of the world 
was the year of 30*0 days uncorrected by any intercalations 
whatever (Treatise on the seventy weeks, p. 233.). The erro- 
neousness of this opinion is sufficiently shewn by what has been 
said respecting the great festivals of the Jews. They were cer- 
tainly observed in common by the whole nation, not by the 
learned of it only. But they plainly could not have been ob- 
served at their appointed seasons of the natural } 7 ear, spring 
and autumn, and at the same time in the iirst and seventh 
months of the Jewish calendar year, by an unintercalated series 
of such years as Mr. Marshall would persuade us were alone 
known to the common people. Therefore in Daniel's time 
another mode of reckoning must have been in common use, as 
well as known to the learned, 

lenee 



( 77 ) 

lence of Scripture with respect to intercalation), 
and when we farther consider that this year was 
undoubtedly used at Babylon when Daniel wrote 
(as appears from the chronology of the era of Na- 
bonassar), we have every reason to conclude that 
the years of the seventy weeks are solar years. Nor 
is this all : by a parity of argument we must like- 
wise conclude, that the 1260 years and the years 
of every numerical prophecy are either individually 
solar years, or collectively solar years. 

3. The importance of the preceding discussion in 
an inquiry like the present is manifest. If the 
years of the seventy zceeks are to be estimated as 
equivalent to solar years, which I think has been 
proved with as much evidence as matters of this 
nature are capable of, no interpretation of the pro* 
phecy, which is founded on the system of lunar or 
abbreviated years of either description, can be deem- 
ed admissible. 



CHAPTER 



( 78 ) 



CHAPTER II. 

Concerning the chronology of the decrees enacted by 
the Icings of Persia for the rebuilding of the 
temple and city of Jerusalem and for the resto- 
ration of the civil and ecclesiastical polity of 
Judah. 

A HE next point to be considered is the chrono- 
logy of the different decrees enacted by the kings of 
Persia for the rebuilding of the city and temple of 
Jerusalem and for the restoration of the civil and 
ecclesiastical polity of Judah ; because from one of 
these we are directed to compute the seventy 
weeks. 

I. It has generally been said, that four decrees 
for these several purposes were enacted : the first, 
by Cyrus in the first year of his reign # ; the second, 
by Darius about the third or fourth year of his 
reign f; the third, by Artaxerxes in the seventh year 

of 

* Ezra i. 1—4. 

f Ezra vi. 1 — 12. Ezra does not positively say in what 
year of Darius this decree was enacted: he only tells us, that 

the 



( 79 ) 

of his reign*; and the fourth, by the same Artax- 
erxes in the twentieth year of his reign f. I am un- 
able however to discover more than three. Cyrus, 
Darius, and Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his 
reign, are expressiy said each to have enacted a de- 
cree J ; and their several decrees are formerly re- 
cited in the regular shape of legal instruments : but 
no mention is made of any decree having been 
enacted by Artaxerxes in the twentieth year of his 
reign. The whole that appears to have then passed 
betweeen the king and Nehemiah was this — Nehe- 
miah, grieved to find the business of rebuilding the 
city proceed so slowly, notwithstanding the edicts 
of Cyrus and Darius, requests permission of the 
king to go to Jerusalem, in order that he may su- 
perintend and expedite the work. The king in- 

the work of the house of God ceased unto the second year of 
his reign (Ezra iv. 24.). The jews then resuming the work, 
Tatnai, Shethar-Bozuai, and the Apharsachites, wrote to the 
king to learn whether any edict of Cyrus gave them authority 
to do so. Darius, having ascertained the existence of such a 
decree, confirmed it by a new one of his own. It may how- 
ever be collected from Haggai i. 1, 15. ii. 1, 10. and Zechar. 
i. 1, 7. vii. l. viii. 2, 3, that the edict of Darius was enacted 
in the third year of his reign, and brought to Jerusalem at the 
beginning of the fourth year. See Prideaux's Connect. Part L 
b. iii. p. 187—191. 

* Ezra vii. 11 — 26. f Nehem. ii. 1—9. 

I Ezra i. 1. V. 13, 17— Ezra vi. 1— Ezra vii. 13, 21. 

quires 



( 80 } 

quires how long he wishes to be absent Nehe- 
miah fixes the time. The king gives his consent. 
Nehemiah desires to liave passports to the gover- 
nors beyond the river, and an order upon Asaph 
the keeper of the royal forests for the requisite 
quantity of timber. The king assents to all his 
wishes ; and Nehemiah forthwith proceeds to Jeru- 
salem- — Throughout the whole of this transaction 
no mention is made of any new decree being enact- 
ed ; the king seems merely to grant permission to 
Nehemiah to put former edicts more effectually 
in force, nor does Nehemiah request any thing else 
of the Persian sovereign. But let the history speak 
for itself. 

Cf And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in 
" the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that 
" wine was before him : and I took up the wine, 
" and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been 
" before time sad in his presence. AYherefore the 
" king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, 
" seeing thou art not sick? This is nothing else 
" but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore 
" afraid, and said unto the king, Let the king live 
" for ever : why should not my countenance be 
" sad, when the city the place of my fathers' sepul- 
<£ chres lieth waste, and the gates thereof are con- 
" sumed with fire? Then the king said unto me, 
u For what dost thou make request? So I prayed 

" to 



( 81 ) 

u to the God of heaven » And I said unto the king, 
" If it please the king; and if thy servant have 
" found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send 
" me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' se~ 
" pulchres, that I may build it. And the king said 
" unto me, the queen also setting by him, For how 
" long shall thy journey be ? and when wilt thou 
£C return? So it pleased the king to send me, and 
i{ I set him a time. Moreover, I said unto the 
u king, If it please the king, let letters be given me 
" to the governors beyond the river, that they may 
" convey me over till I come into Judah ; and a 
" letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, 
" that he may give me timber to make beams for 
" the gates of the palace which appertained to the 
" house, and for the wall of the city, and for the 
i( house that I shall enter into. And the king 
" granted me, according to the good hand of my 
" God upon me. Then I came to the governors 
" beyond the river, and gave them the king's 
" letters V 

In all this account I can perceive nothing like 
the enacting of any decide ; nor is t|iere the least 
hint given elsewhere that a decree was then enact- 
ed : it is merely said, what exactly quadrates with 
the account itself, that Nehemiah was appointed 



* Nehem. ii. 1—9. 

G 



governor 



( 85 J 

governor of Judah in the twentieth year 4 of the Tuns^. 
and that he continued m office until his thirty se- 
cond year*, when he returned to Artaxerxes to Ba^ 
by Ion t- Hence I cannot refrain from' thinkings 
that the bare commission granted by the king to 
Nehemiah has very improperly been esteemed a 
fourth edict; arid consequently that we are scarcely 
warranted, by the terms of the prophecy, in com- 
puting the seventy, xseeks from the twentieth year oS 
Artaxerxes. If then there be any weight in what 
has been here advanced^ no more than three de^ 
crees in favour of the Jews were enacted by the 
kings of Persia, from one or other of which the pe- 
riod in question must be reckoned* I proceed to 
consider their chronology. 

II. Respecting the date of the first decree there 
is not much dispute % for chronologers agree irk 
placing the first year of Cyrus- in the year 4178 of 
the Julian period and in the year 5 36 before the- 
Christian era* 

* Nehem.Y. 14. f Neliem. xiii. & 

% I may almost venture to say no dispute with respect to tH«r 
year, Mr. Lancaster does indeed throw back the scriptural 4 
first year of Cyrus two years, and makes it coincide with thft- 
scripturai first year of Darius the Mede, .instead-' of being suc- 
cessive to it : but for this opinion he has not much warrant. 
It will be discussed hereafter. The year itself is sufficiently 
determined ; but the precise time, of the year is not positively 
deelaredin Scripture* / 

XII* Bui^ 



( 83 ) 

III. But, respecting the second decree, there is 
& question whether it was enacted by Darius Hys- 
taspis, or Darius Nothus ; that is to say, whether 
it was enacted in the year 4195 of the Julian pe- 
riod and in the year 519 before the Christian era, 
or in the year 4293 of the Julian period and in the 
year 421 before the Christian era. The latter opi- 
nion is maintained by Scaliger and Mede*» It3 
untenableness will he manifest from the following 
considerations. 

1. According to profane history, there were three 
sovereigns of the Medo-Persian empire before Da- 
rius Hystaspis ; namely Cyrus, Cambyses, and 
Srnerdis the Magian impostor ; and, according to 
Ezra, there were likewise three, sovereigns of the 
Medo-Persian empire before that Darius w T ho 
enacted a decree in favour of the Jews ; namely 
Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes f * It appears 
therefore from profane history, that a prince called 
Darius was the fourth Medo-Persian sovereign : 
and it also appears from Ezra, that a prince called 
Darius was the fourth Medo-Persian sovereign* 
Hence there is the very strongest presumption, that 
these two princes, each described as the fourth 

* Scalig. de Emend, temp. 1. vi.-^-Mcde's Treatise on Da- 
niel's Weeks. Works, p. 697. 
| Ezra i. 1— iv, 1 — iy, 7, li, 24. 

e S Med* 



( 8"4 ) 

Medb-Persiari sovereign and each denominated Da* 
riuSy are one and the same person ; and conse- 
quently that the Darius Hystaspis of profane his- 
tory is that Darius, who, according to Ezra, enact- 
ed a decree in favour of the Jews. 

Nor is this the only reason. Joshua the high- 
priest, and Zerubbabel the governor, were the per- 
sons who were sent to Jerusalem with the original 
decree of Cyrus # : and they were likewise the per- 
sons who carried into execution the edict of Da- 
rius f . But, between the first year of Cyrus and 
the third year of Darius Nothus, there is a period 
of 115 years. Now, when the decree of Cyrus was 
enacted, Joshua must have been at the least 40 
years of age, because he had sons engaged in the 
work of the temple, the youngest of whom was up*- 
wards of 20 years old J: and we cannot suppose 
Zerubbabel to have been much younger, because 
an inexperienced boy would scarcely have been ap- 
pointed governor. Such being the case, if we adopt 
the opinion of Scaliger and Mede, that the Darius 
who enacted the decree was Darius Nothus, we 
shall make Joshua and Zerubbabel at the era of the 
second decree to have been, upon the most mo- 

* Ezra- ifc 2. iii. 8. 

t Ezra v. 2, 5, 6. vi. 1— Haggai iv 1— Zccfaar. I S. iii. 1. 
iv. 6, % 9- 

% Ezra iii. 8, % 

sferats; 



( $5 ) 

derate calculation, little less than 160 years of 
age. 

This chronological objection Scaliger attempts to 
•remove by urging, that there have been instances, 
even in our own days, of equal longevity — In- 
stances, it is true, of remarkable longevity have oc- 
curred ; but they have been solitary instances : 
whereas, if Darius Nothus be the Darius in ques- 
tion, there must have been, at the time when his 
edict was put into execution, not a single individual 
merely, but several persons even of a yet greater 
age than the supposed age of Joshua and Zerub- 
babel. In the second year of the Darius who 
enacted the decree, Haggai is directed by the Lord 
to inquire of the assembled residue of the people, 
" Who is left among you that saw this house in its 
(t first glory ? and how do ye see it now ? Is it 
" not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing*?" 
Now the first house was destroyed by Nebuchad- 
nezzar in the year A.C. 588, and the second year 
of Darius Nothus synchronizes with the year A. C, 
42 2 : consequently, between the destruction of the 
first temple and £he second year of Darius Nothus, 
there is a period of 166 years. But the very ear- 
liest that we can suppose a person to be a compe- 
tent judge of the comparative magnificence of two 



* Haggai ii. 3 4 



buildings 



( 85 ) 

buildings is the age of 10 years; and even this sup- 
position, which is plainly far too low a one, would 
make every person, who had viewed with the eye 
of observation the first temple, no less than 176 
years old in the second year of Darius Nothus. 
Granting then the possibility that Joshua and Ze- 
rubbabel might have attained to the advanced age 
which the hypothesis of Scaliger and Mede requires, 
it is surely incredible that there should be many 
among the residue of the people nearly 1 80 years 
old, to whom Haggai could appeal respecting the 
comparative magnificence of the two temples. But 
this we shall be obliged to suppose, if we adopt the 
scheme of Scaliger and Mede and attribute the 
enacting of the second decree to Darius Nothus in- 
stead of Darius Hystaspis. 

Scaliger does indeed attempt to obviate this diffi- 
culty also, by explaining the words in Haggai inter- 
jectionally, Oh / if any of you had seen the glory 
of the first house! whence it would appear, that, 
so far from there being many who had seen the first 
house, there were none then alive — But the original 
wall not bear such a translation. The literal ver- 
sion of it is, Who amongst you is left, that hath 
seen this house in its first glory f And what do ye 
see it now ? Is it not in comparison of that as no* 
thing in your eyes? Here an appeal is plainly 
mad^ to persons who had seen both houses; other- 
wise; 



( 87 ) 

wise it would have been impossible for them to 
make that comparison between the two which they 
are called upon to make, 

3. There is yet another argument of a numerical 
nature with which we are furnished by Zechariah. 
He tells us, that in the second year of the Darius, 
who was contemporary with himself and Joshua 
;and Zerubbabel, and who consequently was the 
person that enacted the decree, God had had indig- 
nation against Jerusalem and the cities of Judah 
70 years # . He moreover tells us, that in the 
fourth year of this same Darius the people had ob- 
served the fasts of the fifth and seventh months 70 
gears ^ "Now it is known, that the fast of the fifth 
>month was instituted on account of the final de- 
struction of the city and temple by Nebuchadnezzar 
in the fifth Jewish month of the jear A. C. 588 ; 
and the fast of the seventh month, on account of 
the murder of Gedaliah and the utter desolation of 
the land in the seventh month of the same year. It 
is likewise known, that the final siege of Jerusalem 
hy Nebuchadnezzar, which terminated with the de- 
struction of the city and temple, commenced in the 
year A. C. 590. If then we compute 70 years from 
the jear A. CL 5$Q, we shall be brought to the year 

* aSech.-i. 12, Compare Eschar, L 1. iih h m 6c Ezra v. 
1, 2, 5. vi. 1. 

# ZecL viu 1, 3 f 5, « 

A» G# 



( 88 ) 

A. C. 520, which synchronizes with the second year 
of Darius Hystaspis : and, if we compute 70 years 
also from the year A. C. 588, we shall be brought 
to the year A. C. 518, which synchronizes with the 
fourth year of Darius Hystaspis *. These two pe- 
riods therefore of 70 years each are plainly the two 
periods spoken of by Zechariah as terminating in 
the second and fourth years of a prince named Da- 
rius: because they commence, the one with the 
siege of Jerusalem, and the other xvith the destruc- 
tion of the temple and the complete desolation of 
the land, on account of which it is known that the 
two fasts were instituted. And, since they termi- 
nate in the second and fourth years of Darius Hys- 
taspis, that Darius must necessarily be the Darius 
spoken of by Zechariah, and consequently the Da- 
rius who enacted the decree — As the exact corres- 
pondence of the two periods with the second and 
fourth years of Darius Hystaspis proves that that 
prince must be the Darius in question, so their 
complete want of correspondence with the second 
and fourth years of Darius Nothus no less effectu- 
ally proves that he cannot be the Darius of Zecha- 
riah. From the commencement of the last siege of 
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the year A. C. 
590 to the second year of Darius Nothus, which 

J See the chronological tables in the Appendix, 
h . synchronizes 



( 89 ) 

synchronizes with the year A. C. 422, there are 168 
years ; and, from the destruction of Jerusalem by 
Nebuchadnezzar in the year A. C. 588 to the fourth 
year of Darius Nothus, which synchronizes with 
the year A. C. 420, there are likewise 16S years: 
whereas, had he been the Darius mentioned by 
Zechariah, there ought in both cases to have been 
no more than 70 years. Hence it is plain, that the 
Darius who enacted the second decree must have 
been Darius Hystaspis, and not Darius Nothus. 

Of this second chronological objection to his hy- 
pothesis Scaliger is aware. lie attempts therefore 
to get rid of it (in part at least) by asserting, that 
the fasts in the fifth and seventh months must have 
been formally appointed by an act of the Jewish 
church : but that there could be no convention of 
that church until after the restoration from Baby- 
lon : therefore that the 70 years, during which the 
fasts had been kept in the fourth year of Zechariah s 
Darius^ must not be computed from the actual oc- 
currence of the events which they commemorated 
— This is plainly a mere attempt to elude the diffi- 
culty. There is no reason to suppose, that the ec- 
clesiastical polity of the Jews was so entirely dis- 
solved during the Babylonian captivity, that fasts 
could not be immediately appointed in remembrance 
of the calamities then fresh in their minds. Indeed 
the very circumstance of their appointment is. de- 
tailed 



( so ) 

Sailed in the first chapter of the apocryphal book of 
Baruch : and, although this book be not canonical, 
the writer of k, whoever he was, must, to keep up 
the probability of his narrative, have ascribed to the 
fasts that origin which was generally believed among 
the Jews, It may be added, that the observance of 
such an ordinance seems to be hinted at in the 137th 
Psalm, which might perhaps have been composed 
for the occasion. But, even supposing that there 
could be no formal meeting of the Jewish church 
during the captivity, surely it is more likely that the 
leading men should solemnly recommend the ob- 
servance of annual fasts from the time of the events 
commemorated by them, than that such fasts should 
not be appointed until many years afterwards. And, 
when to this abstract probability is added the actual 
circumstance that 70 years computed from the oc- 
currence of the events expire precisely in the fourth 
year of a prince named Ddrkis, the result seems to 
he little less than absolute certainty, that the fasts 
were observed from the occurrence of the events, 
and consequently that the Darius spoken of must 
have been Darius Hystaspis. To suppose other- 
wise is in fact to suppose, that the fasts were not 
instituted until 98 years after the occurrence of the 
events which they commemorated, and until 46 
years after the restoration of the Jews in the first 
year of Cyrus; during anyone of which 46 years 

they 



( *? ) 

they might, even according to Scaliger himself, have 
been regularly appointed by a convention of the 
church — But, if Scaliger had been more successful 
than he has been in repelling the present objection, 
another would still remain behind. In the second 
year of this same Darius, whoever he was, God is 
said to have had indignation against Jerusalem 70 
years. Now, if this Darius be Darius Hystaspis, 
we immediately perceive the reason of the declara- 
tion ; for exactly 7 0 years before his second year 
the final siege of Jerusalem commenced. But, if he 
be Darius Nothus, it will be impossible to discover 
why God should be said to have had indignation 
against Jerusalem 70 years, neither more nor less, 
reckoned backward from his second year. 

4. The point may be still further proved by a 
fourth argument. Ezra, subsequent to his detailing 
the history of the decree enacted by Darius, tells 
us, that " after these things" he was sent to Jeru- 
salem to execute a new decree enacted in the se- 
venth year of Artaxerxes *• Let Darius then be 
who he may, this Artaxerxes must plainly be his 
successor, because his decree was enacted after the 
decree of Darius, If therefore Darius Nothus be 
the Darius intended by Ezra, the Artaxerxes whom 
he mentions; being a successor of this Darius, must 

* Ezra vii. 1, 8. 

have 



( m | 

hky® hem Artaxerxes Mnemon *. Such a suppo- 
sition however is utterly irreconcileable with chvo* 
oology, as will sufficiently appear from the following 
statement. 

Whoever the Artaxerxes may be that is men- 
tioned by Ezra as enacting the third decree, he 
must be that Artaxerxes who was contemporary 
with Eliashib the high-priest of the Jews, because 
Eliashib was high-priest when Nehemiah came to 
Jerusalem in the twentieth year of this same Ar- 
taxerxes^. Now, according to the number of years 
which the Chronicon Alexandrinum ascribes to each 
high-priest, Eliashib could not have been contem- 
porary with Artaxerxes Mnemon, but must have 
been contemporary with Artaxerxes Longmanus, 
The high-priesthood of Joshua commenced with the 
first year of Cyrus and the year 4178 of the Julian 
period, and lasted 53 years ; that of his son Joiakim 
lasted 30 years : and that of his grandson Eliashib, 
the high-priest in question^ 40 years, Hence it is 



* Darius Nothus had two successors of the name of Artax* 
erxes, Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Artaxerxes Ochus. The latter 
of. these however could not be the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Ne* 
hernial), because mention is made of the 32d year of their Ar- 
taxerxes (Nehem* xiii. 6.), whereas Ockus reigned no more than 
2 1 years. Consequently, if the Darius of Ezra be Darius No* 
thus, his Artaxerxes must be Artaxerxes Mnemon* 

f Nehem, ii, I« iii. 3L 

evident^ 



( 93 ) 

evident, that Joiakim must have died 82 years after 
the first year of Cyrus: that is to say, he mast have 
died in the year 4260 of the Julian period, which 
coincides with the eleventh year of Artaxerxes Lou- 
g'wianus. At this time therefore Eliashib must 
have succeeded him. Consequently, the Artax- 
erxes, with whom Eliashib was contemporary, must 
have been Artaxerxes Longimanus. It is also evi- 
dent, that Eliashib must have died 122 years after 
the first year of Cyrus: that is to say, he must have 
died in the year 4300 of the Julian period, which 
coincides with the tenth year of Darius Nothus. 
But Darius Not has was the predecessor of Artax- 
erxes Mnemon. Therefore the Artaxerxes, with 
whom Eliashib was contemporary, could not have 
been Artaxerxes Mnemon ; inasmuch as Eliashib 
died in the tenth year of Darius Nothus, before 
Artaxerxes Mnemon came to the throne *; 

Thus 

* See the chronological tables in the Appendix. The Chro>~ 
Bicon Alexandrinum is followed by Dr. Prideaux as the safest 
guide in ascertaining the lengths of the high-priesthoods after 
the Babylonian captivity. That Eliashib was the son of Joia- 
kim, and Joiakim the son of Joshua, appears from Nehem. xii„ 
10. Independent indeed of the Chronicon Alexandrinum,. the 
eiTor of Scaliger is manifest from this consideration. M Elia- 
shib was high-priest in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, 
which he must have been if the Darius who enacted the decree 
was Darius Notkus, the three successive high-priesthoods of a 

father 



( 94 ) 

Thus it appears, that the Artaxerxes, with whom 
Eliashib was contemporary, must have been Artax- 
erxes Longimanus. But the contemporary of Elia- 
shib was the Artaxerxes who enacted the third de- 
cree. Therefore the Artaxerxes who enacted the 
third decree, must have been Artaxerxes Longima- 
nus. This being the case, since the decree of Da- 
rius was enacted previous to the decree of Artax- 
erxes Longimanus, the Darius who enacted it must 
have been a predecessor of that sovereign. There- 
fore he could not be Darius Not kits, who w T as the 
successor of Artaxerxes Longimanus. But, if he 
were not Darius Nothus, he must have been Da- 
rius Hijstaspis ; because there was no other Darius 
between Cyrus and Artaxerxes Longimanus. 

The general result then of the whole is, that, 
since Ezra's Darius is Darius Hi/staspis, and since 
the decree in favour of the Jews was enacted in the 
third year of this Darius, it must have been enacted 
in the Julian year 419<5, and in the year 519 before 
the Christian era. 

IV. Respecting the propriety of the chronologi- 
cal arrangement here maintained, Petavius, Usher, 

father, a son, and a grandson, must jointly have extended to 
the incredible length of more than a century and a half. For 
the first year of Joshua coincides with the first year of Cyrus, 
or the Julian year 417S ; and the 20th year of Artaxerxes 
Mnemon coincides with the Julian year 4329. 

9 mnd 



( 89 > 

and* Pricteaux, are all agreed in opposition to Sea- 
liger: but there has been, a difference of opinion in 
settling the true epoch of the first year, and conse- 
quently of the seventh and twentieth years, of Artax- 
erxes Longimanus, who was contemporary with 
Ezra and Nehemiah. That his father Xerxes be- 
gan to reign in the year of the Julian period, 
and in the year A. C. 485, and that his own reiga 
expired m the year 4289 or 4290' of the Julian pe- 
riod, and in the year A. C. 425 or 424, according 
as the nine months during which- his sea Xerxes 
and Sogdianus reigned after him are exeluded or in- 
cluded*, is universally acknowledged!: the only 
question is, when the reign of Artaxerxes is to be 
considered as beginnings Petavius and Usher make 
his first year commence in the year 4240 of the Ju- 
lian period, and in the year A.C. 474, but with this 
difference : Usher makes it commence so. far on in 
the year, that the Nisem of his first year falls out in 
the Julian year 4241, and in the year A. C. 473 ; 

* In estimating- the length of the rergns of Xerxes and Ar- 
taxerxes, the year of the Julian period 42*29 and the year 4289 
©r 42^0 are to be reckoned inclusive, to make up thes^m total- 
o£ their reigns 6i years or 62" years, according as the reign of 
Artaxerxes is reputed to extend to the year 428^ or to the yeas 
4290. 

•f Mr, Lancaster indeed objects ; but, with how little rea- 
son, wUl be shewn hereafter, 

whereas^ 



( 96 ) 

whereas, according to Petavius, it falls out in the 
preceding year. This difference, of course, runs 
through the whole of his reign : consequently the 
Nisan in his twentieth year, from which they alike 
compute the seventy weeks, is the Nisan in the Ju- 
lian year 4259 and in the year A.C. 455, according 
to Petavius ; whereas, according to Usher, it is the 
Nisan in the Julian year 4250 and in the year A.C* 
454 But Dr. Prideaux, adhering to the canon 
of Ptolemy, makes his first year coincide with the 
Julian year 4250 and the year A.C. 464, so that 
the Nisan of that year falls out in the first year of 
his reign : consequently, according to this reckon- 
ing, the Nisan in his twentieth year will be the 
Nisan of the Julian year 4269 and of the year A. C. 
445 ; and the Nisan in his seventh year will be the 
Nisan of the Julian year 4256 and of the year A. C. 
458. In short, the two first of these computations 

* Pctav. Rationar. Temp. par. ii. lib. iii. c, 10. p. 123 — 125 
—TJsser. Anna), in A. P. J. 4240, 4259, 4260. Dr. Prideaux: 
is right in saying, that both Petavius and Usher compute the 
seventy weeks from the Nisan in the twentieth year of Artax- 
erxes: but, as far as I can understand those two chronologers, 
lie is mistaken in asserting, that they equally reckon from the 
Julian year 4260, and of course from the Nisan in that year. 
Usher does indeed compute from the Nisan of that year; but 
Petavius computes from the Nisan of the preceding year: con- 
sequently they differ a year in the cm of our Lord's crucifixion,, 
See Prideaux's Connect, part i. b. v« p. 2£)4, 2£)5. 



( 97 ) 

place the seventh year and the twentieth year of 
Artaxerxes each from nine to ten years further back 
than the third does. 

1. Though Petavius agrees with Usher in reckon- 
ing the seventy weeks from the Nisan of the twen- 
tieth year of Artaxerxes, sod though he nearly 
agrees with him in his chronological arrangement 
of the first year of that prince, they do not adopt 
such an arrangement precisely on the same grounds. 
Petavius places the death of Xerxes in the same 
year with Dr. Prideaux ; but supposes, that about 
ten years previous to his death he admitted Artax- 
erxes into a share of the government, and that from, 
this admission all the years of the latter prince's 
reign (and therefore among them his twentieth year) 
are to be computed. He builds his hypothesis 
chiefly upon the authority of Thucydides ; who tells 
us, that Themistocles, when he fled into Persia, ad- 
dressed himself to Artaxerxes, then in the beginning 
of his reign # . But we are informed by Diodorus 
Siculus, that Themistocles fled into Persia in the 
second year of the 77th Olympiad, several years 
iefore the death of Xerxes f. Petavius therefore, 

in 

-f- Diodorus asserts, that Xerxes reigned 21 years, herein 
agreeing with the canon of Ptolemy ; but he likewise asserts, 
that Themistocles fled into Persia in the second year of the 

H 77th 



( 58 ) 

fri order to reconcile these two authors, conjecture^ 
that Artaxerxes must have been admitted into a 
share of the government several years before the 
death of his father : and the number of these years 
he determines to be ten ; which arrangement ena- 
bles him to reckon the seventy zveeks from the twen- 
tieth year of Artaxerxes, supposing that year to be 
computed from his admission into a copartnership 
of the empire. The conjecture itself he grounds 
on the practice of the Persian kings to name their 
successors previous to their taking the field in any 
war of importance : and the particular war, previous 
to which Artaxerxes was so named, he supposes to 
be that against the Greeks, which Xerxes renewed 
after the death of Pausanias. 

Against this hypothesis more than one objection 
may be urged — 1. There is nothing in history ta 
warrant the conjecture which is necessary to it 
Herodotus does indeed tell us, that, w r hen a dis- 
puted succession was apprehended, the king of 
Persia was wont to name his successor : but the 
tnere naming of a successor is a very different thing 
from the associating of a colleague into a copartner- 
ship of empire. From the latter the years of a 
prince might be reckoned ; from the former it is 

77th Olympiad : therefore he necessarily brings him to th§ 
Persian ceurt seyerai years before the death of Xerxes. 

impossibly 



( 99 ) 

impossible that they should * — -2. The seventh year 
of this same Artaxerxes is mentioned by Ezra, the 
immediate predecessor of Nehemiah who mentions 
his twentieth year: therefore, if the one year be 
computed from his supposed nomination as succes- 
sor, the other must be similarly computed : in which 
case, if he were so nominated ten years before the 
death of his father, his seventh year must plainly 
coincide with that preceding his father's antepenul- 
timate year. But the language used by Ezra in his 
account of the decree enacted in the seventh year 
of Artaxerxes, decidedly proves him to have been 
then reigning alone f . Therefore, if the father were 
dead in the seventh year of the son, and if this se- 
venth year were reckoned from the son's association 
into the government, the son could not have been 
so associated ten years before the death of the fa- 
ther— 3. Thucydides, in the passage whence the 

* Petavius wishes indeed to blend the two ideas together, as 
if the nominated successor must therefore be a colleague in em- 
pire: but Herodotus, to whom he refers, so far from corrobo- 
rating his opinion, directly contradicts it. He tells us, that 
Xerxes was nominated the successor of Darius before the death 
of that prince, but that he did not ascend the throne until after 
it (See Herod. 1. vii. c, 2, 3, 4, 5.). Yet, on the authority of 
this account, Petavius would make Artaxerxes to have been, 
the colleague of Xerxes, and to have even borne the title of king 
in his father's life-time. 

f -See the whole of Ezra vii. 

u % opinfoa 



( 100 ) 

opinion of Petavius is deduced, evidently speaks of 
Artaxerxes as having recently come to the throne 
after the death of his father, not during his life- 
time: consequently, this arrangement both contra- 
dicts Thucydides, and fails of reconciling him with 
Diodorus, because according to the latter historian 
Themistocles came to the Persian court during the 
life of Xerxes — 4. Artaxerxes, as we are informed 
by Justin and Diodorus, was only a hoy at the 
death of his father, which (according to Petavius) 
occurred about seven years after his reception of 
Themistocles ; for Thucydides asserts that he re- 
ceived him in the beginning of his reign, and Peta- 
vius makes his reign commence about three years 
before the reception of his Athenian guest. Hence, 
if be were only a boy w hen his father died, he must 
have been little more than an infant seven years 
previous to that event : consequently, he must at 
that time have been incapable of receiving any ad- 
dress from Themistocles*. 

2. Abp. 

* Abp. Usher objects to the account, which makes Artax- 
erxes a b )ij at the death of his father ; because he is said by 
Justin to have stabbed Artabanus only seven months after that 
event, and because in his seventh year he is represented by 
'Ezra (viL 23.) as being the father of more than one son. 
These different circumstances the Primate thinks incongruous, 
as a boy would be unequal to the personal assassination of « 
mm, and as this boy could scarcely have been the father of a 

family 



( ioi ) 

ft Abp. Usher nearly agrees with Petavius in 
his arrangement of the twentieth year of Artax- 
erxes, 

family in the seventh year after he was styled a boy. Annal. in 
A. P. J. 4241. 

The incongruity does not appear to me to be such as will 
warrant our rejection of the testimony of Justin and Diodorus. 
Let us suppose Artaxerxes to have been twelve years of age at 
the time of his father's death. In that case, he was a boy when 
his father died, and might therefore with the strictest propriety 
have been so denominated in history. Yet, seven months af- 
terwards, when he was nearly thirteen years old, I see no diffi- 
culty in conceiving, that he might have thrust Artabanus 
through with a sword in the manner that the story is told by 
Justin, namely when Artabanus was unarmed and off his guard, 
And, if we consider both the early puberty of the inhabitants 
of warm climates, and the prevailing practice of polygamy,, I 
see as little difficulty in conceiving, that, in the seventh year 
after the death of his father, when he would have been eigh- 
teen years old, he might have been the parent by different wives 
even of many sons. 

The objection however of Abp. Usher furnishes another ar- 
gument against the hypothesis of Petavius. If Artaxerxes were 
only a boy at the death of his father, if he were admitted into 
a copartnership of the empire from nine to ten years before 
that death, and if his seventh and twentieth years are to be 
reckoned from his admission into a share of the government ; 
it is evident, that in his seventh year he must have been from 
two to three years younger than he was when his father died. 
But he was a boy even when his father died. Therefore, two 
or three years before that event or in his supposed seventh year, 
he must have been a still younger boy: that is to say, accord- 
ing to the hypothesis of Petavius, he could not, in his seventh 

year, 



( 102 ) 

erxes, but differs from him in his date of the death 
of Xerxes. Instead of making Artaxerxes reigi> 
about ten years conjointly with his father, he places 
the death of his father about nine years further 
back i and thus, agreeably to the general opinion, 
he makes Artaxerxes regularly succeed his father, 
and computes the years of his reign according to 
the years of his actual reign, reckoning from the 
death of Xerxes. In other words, he takes nine 
years from the reign of Xerxes, and adds them to 
that of Artaxerxes ; extending the reign of Artax- 
erxes (within which the few months, during whiph 
his two successors reigned, are included) to 50 
years, and reducing that of Xerxes to no more than 
years. This hypothesis is adopted for the pur- 
pose of more satisfactorily reconciling Thucydides 
with Diodorus Siculus, who tells us that Themisto- 
cles fled into Persia so early as. the second year of 
the 77th Olympiad. 

It is objectionable on the following grounds — - 
1. In shortening the reign of Xerxes to J 2 years 
and in lengthening that of Artaxerxes to 50 years, 

year, have beer) more than nine or ten years old. Yet this 
Artaxerxes, in the decree enacted in his seventh year, speaks 
of himself as then ? namely in his seventh year, having sons (Ezra 
yit. 23.) ; that is to say, as haying forts at the very time, yvhen s 
if Petavius be followed, his own age could not have exceeded 
ten years* 

>t 



( 103 ) 

it directly contradicts the astronomical canon of 
Ptolemy; which assigns 21 years to Xerxes, and 
41 years to Artaxerx.es including the short reigns of 
his two successors. It likewise contradicts the ge- 
neral testimony of history, which accords with the 
arrangement of Ptolemy * — 2. It does not reconcile 
Thucydides with Diodorus Siculus, any more than 
the scheme of Petavius : for Thucydides represents 
Themistocles as applying to Artaxerxes after the 
death of his father and at the beginning of his reign, 
while Diodorus places his flight before, the death of 
that prince's father, and fixes it to the second year 
of the 77th Olympiad. These two statements can 
never subsist together : one, or the other, of them 
must be erroneous t — 3. If it be thought necessary 

* Diodorus, Plutarch, Afrieanus, Eusebius, and others, all 
agree in stating, that Xerxes reigned 2i years, and Artaxerxes 
41 years. 

+ At least this must be the case, if Diodorus Siculus means 
to say, that Themistocles fled directly to the court of Persia in 
the 2d year of the 77th Olympiad. Mr. Marshall attempts 
very ingeniously to reconcile the two historians, by supposing, 
that, although Themistocles might flee from Athens in the year 
mentioned by Diodorus and therefore in the life-time of Xerxes ; 
yet, since (according to Cornelius Nepos) he fled to Argos in 
the Jirst instance and lived there an indefinite space of time in 
great dignity, he might therefore not arrive at the court of Persia 
yntil the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes after the 
death of his father, agreeably to the assertion of Thucydides. 
Marshall's Treatise on. the seventy weeks, p. 178. 

to 



( 104 ) 

to adopt the statement of Thucydides rather than 
that of Piodorus, we are still no way obliged (as 
the Primate does) to impugn the astronomical canon 
of Ptolemy. Instead of placing the first year of 
Artaxerxes nine years farther back^ we may, with 
Mr. Dodwefl*, adjust the matter in a way perfectly 
agreeable to the canon, by setting aside the date as- 
signed by Diodorus to the flight of Themistocles, 
and by bringing that flight nine years lower clown- — • 
4. But, however this may be, the Greek historians, 
so far as we can collect from Plutarch, seem to have 
had very uncertain information respecting the Per- 
sian sovereign to whom Themistocles addressed 
himself. Some tell us, that it was Xerxes; and 
others, his son Artaxerxes. The former opinion 
was held by Diodorus, Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, 
Heraciides, and others : the latter, by Thucydides 
and Charon of Lampsacusf. Dr. Prideaux pre- 
fers the first J: Mr. Dodwell and Abp. Usher, the 
second. Such being the case, I cannot think that 
the authority of any of them will warrant the Pri- 
mate in setting aside, as he does in this instance, th« 
canon of Ptolemy §. If we must bow to the autho- 
rity 

' * In Annal. Thucyd. f Pint in vit. Themist 

I Prideaux's Connect, part i. b. iv. p. 257, 258. 
§ Mr. Marshall well observes, that " it is impossible for ijs 

<ls to know of a certainty how these things were. The ancients 

<( themselves* 



( 105 ) 

rity of Thucydides, we must surely bow no less to 
the authority of Ptolemy : and, if so, the authority 
of Diodorus must give place, and the flight of The- 
mistocles must be brought nine years lower down * 
which is perhaps the best arrangement that can be 
adopted * At any rate, the canon of Ptolemy caiH 
not be given up. Though it may have been cer- 
tainly known in general (as it appears to have been 
both from the canon and from history), that Xerxes 
reigned c l 1 years, and Artaxerxes 41; it is easy to 
conceive, that a Greek writer may have incautiously- 
erred respecting the minor circumstance of the par- 
ticular prince to whom Themistocles made applica- 
tion. But the canon of Ptolemy is built upon as- 
tronomical demonstrations, and no one has hitherto 
detected any error in his calculation of the eclipses 
by which his chronological eras are determined,, 
It is moreover verified by its agreement every where 

li themselves, as we have seen, were not agreed in the exact 
time of them. Even in Plutarch's time, they were points 
" disputed. It is surely vain and trifling therefore from such 
<c uncertain characters of time to go about to settle the chro- 
" nological points now before us ; especially to think of esta- 
" blishing them from hence in opposition to Ptolemy's canon 
6t the surest guide we have in chronology." Treatise on the 
seventy weeks, p. 179» 

* " The opinion of Thucydides," says Plutarch, *' seems 
" most agreeable to chronology, though that is not perfectly 
P wel] settled." Plut. in yit. Themist. 

with 



( 106 ) 

with Scripture. Hence it is the surest guide in 
chronology, and cannot be set aside for the autho^ 
fity of any other human writing whatsoever. 

3. Thus we may, I think, conclude, that the date, 
which Dr. Prideaux has assigned to the first year 
of Artaxerxes is the true one ; inasmuch as it ac* 
cords both with the canon of Ptolemy, and with 
the general testimony that is borne to the respec- 
tive lengths of the reigns of Xerxes and Artax- 
erxes *. 

V. We may now therefore exhibit the following 
chronological table, shewing at one point of view 
the different dates of the several decrees, enacted 
by the kings of Persia, relative to the rebuilding of 
jthe city and temple of Jerusalem and the restora- 
tion of the Leyitical Church under Ezra and Ne* 
fcemiah. 

f See Pricteaux's Connect, part i, b. v, p. 280— 2$r f 



Years 



( 107 ) 









Years of the reigns of the kings of 


A.&.N. 


A.P.J. 


A. A. C. 


PeTsia, in which the several 
edicts were enacted. 


212 


4178 


536' 


Edict of Cyrus in the first year 
of his reign. Ezrai. 1 — 4. Com- 
pare Chap. v. 13, 17, vi. 1 — 5. 




4195 


51.9 


Edict of Darius Hystaspis in 
the third year of his reign. Ezra 
vi 1 — 12, Compare Chap. iv. 
24. v. Zechar. i. 1, 7 9 vii. 1. 
viii. 3. 


290 


4256 


453 


Edict of Artaxerxes Longlma- - 
nus, promulged in the month Ni- 
sa?i in the seventh y^ar of his reign. 
Ezra vii. 7, 8, 9, 11—26. 


303 


4269 


445 


Permission granted by Artax- 
crxcs Longimanus in the month 
Nisan, in the twentieth year of 
his reign, to Nehemiah to go up 
to Jerusalem for the purpose of, 
v superintending and forwarding the 
rebuilding of the city. Nehem. 
ii. 1—9. 



VI. The result of what has been said is this. 
As the former inquiry set aside all interpretations 
pf the prophecy of the seventy weeks, which are 
founded upon the hypothesis of adopting abbrevi • 
ated lunar months of either description : so the 
present sets aside all, that compute the seventy 
weeks from dates which disagree with those in the 
chronological table here exhibited. Indeed, if I 

mistake 



( 108 ) 

mistake not, it does more. For, since they are 
plainly to be computed from the enacting of a de-. 
cree to rebuild Jerusalem in some sense or ano- 
ther*, if no decree of any sort were enacted in the 
twentieth year of Artaxerxes, but only a verbal 
permission granted to Nehemiah to enforce more 
effectually the edicts of Cyrus and Darius, as I 
have attempted to shew ; then they cannot be com- 
puted from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, whe- 
ther that year be arranged agreeably to the chrono- 
logy of Petavius and Usher, or to that of Ptolemy 
$nd Prideaux. 

* Ban. ix. 25* 



CHAPTER 



I m ) 



CHAPTER III. 

Concerning the various interpretations that ham 
been given of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, 

T^HESE necessary preliminary matters being set- 
tled, we shall now be better prepared to examine 
the merits of various interpretations that have been 
given of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. 

I. Many commentators have adopted the plan of 
reckoning this period from the twentieth year of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus, in which Nehemiah was 
sent from Babylon to superintend the rebuilding of 
Jerusalem. They seem to have been induced to 
prefer it chiefly from an idea, that the language, in 
which that prince's commission is couched, corres- 
ponds more exactly with the language of the pro- 
phecy than the terms of the three preceding 
edicts. 

1 . The exposition offered by its original author 
Africanus, who flourished at the beginning of the 
third century, is briefly as follows. He. first main- 
tains, that the years, of which the seventy weeks are 

composed, 



( no ) 

composed, ought to be estimated as abbreviated 
lunar years of 354 days each. He next asserts,- that 
they are to be reckoned unto the Messiah, by which 
phrase he understands unto the death of the Mes- 
siah. He then counts 475 natural years from the 
twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the fifteenth year of 
Tiberius Cesar, in which he supposes Christ to have 
suffered* And these 475 years he states to be equal, 
within a mere trifle (as they undoubtedly are), to 
490 years of 354 days each*. 

This ancient interpretation abounds with palpa~ 
ble mistakes of various descriptions-— 1. Its very 
principle is itself erroneous, inasmuch as it is found* 
ed on a mode of computation, the propriety of which 
cannot be allowed. I have already shewn, that we 
have no right to conclude from the prophet's use 
of the verb *]nrU, that he is here employing abbre- 
viated lunar years instead of natural solar years : 
and I have moreover shewn, that, whatever might 
be the length of a single Jewish year (whether it 
was a solar year or a lunar year), the use of unm-* 
tercalated lunar years in the interpretation of this 
prophecy is indefensible — 2. Its arrangement of 
the xveeks is likewise erroneous. I stop not at pre- 
sent to inquire how far it is possible for unto the 
Messiah to mean unto the death of the Messiah : 

* African, apud Hieron? Comment, in Dan. in loc. 

m 



( in ) 

ttih point will be discussed hereafter. Let it ho^f* 
ever mean what it may, we are taught by the pro-» 
phet to calculate unto the Messiah the period of 
sixty-two weeks added to seven weeks, that is to say 
skrty-nine weeks : the hypothesis in question calcu- 
lates, not sixty-nine weeks, but seventy weeks — > 
3. Its chronology is equally erroneous, According 
to the astronomical canon of Ptolemy, between the 
twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus and the 
fifteenth year of Tiberius Cesar, there are only 47S 
years, not 475 years # : so that, if Christ had been 
actually crucified ia the fifteenth year of the latter 
of these princes, the scheme would still have been 
defective. Much more therefore does it fail, when 
we find that Christ suffered death, not in the fif- 
teenth year of Tiberius, but in his nineteenth year, 
Nor will the matter be at all improved if we reckon 
the seventy weeks unto the true time of the death of 
our Lord. Between Nehemiah's receiving his com- 
mission from Artaxerxes in the twentieth year of 
his, reign and the crucifixion of Christ, there are 

* From the number of years assigned to each reign in this 
canon, it appears, that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes coin- 
cides, with A. M. N. 303 and A. P. J. 4269 ; and the fifteenth 
year of the sole reign of Tiberius, with A. M. N. 7/6* and 
A. P. J. 4742. See the chronological tables in the Appen- 
ds* 

/j precisely 



112 ) 

precisely 477 solar years *« But no calculation* by 
lunar years of any description will reduce 490 years 
to the exact sum of 477 solar years. If we con- 
sider them as true lunar years of 354 days each, 
490 such years will be equal to 474 solar years and 
about 231 j days, which falls more than two years 
short of 477 solar years : and, if we consider them 
as lunar years of 360 days each, we shall be yet 
more in fault the other way ; for 490 such years 
will be equal to 482 solar years and about 349j 
days, which carries us almost six years beyond 477 
solar years. So that, according to either mode of 
abbreviated computation, the 490 years cannot be 
made to quadrate with the 477 solar years which 
elapsed between the twentieth year of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus and the year in which our Lord was 
crucified. 

2. Petavius and Abp. Usher compute, like Afri- 
canus, the seventy weeks from the grant of Nehe- 
miah's commission in the twentieth year of Artax- 
erxes, though they differ materially from him in 
other particulars. They rightly judge, that, how- 
ever the Jews might reckon single insulated years, 
a period of 490 of their years is virtually the same 

* Christ was crucified in the month Nisan A. JE. C. 33 and 
A. P- J. 4746, and Nehemiah received his commission from 
Artaxerxes in the month Nisan A, A. C. 445 and A. P. J, 

as 



{ Us ) 

M a period of 490 solar years. But this opinio^ 
as Africanus was well aware, will not allow them 
to reckon 490 solar years from the Nisan in the 
twentieth year of Artaxerxes as that year is arranged 
in the canon of Ptolemy. Hence they place it 
from nine to ten years further back; the former 
making the Nisan in it to be the Nisan of the year 
4259 of the Julian period and of the year A. C. 
455, the latter making the Nisan in it to be the 
Nisan of the Julian year 426'0 and of the year 
A. C. 454. From the Nisan then in the twentieth 
year of Artaxerxes, in which month Nehemiah re- 
ceived his commission *, Petavius, according to his 
arrangement of it, first computes sixty-nine weeks 
or 483 years ; the period, which (we are taught by 
the prophecy) reaches from the going forth of the 
edict to rebuild Jerusalem unto Messiah the prince. 
This brings him down to the Julian year 4742, in, 
which he places the baptism of Christ. He then 
reckons three years more for the half xveek, which 
brings him to the Julian year 4745. Here he 
places the crucifixion, by which the Levitical sacri- 
fice and oblation was spiritually abolished f. In a 

similar 

* Nehem. ii. L 

f As Petavius is very brief, X shall give his system in his 
owrV words, more especially since I have intimated, that Pri- 
deaux appears to me to be mistaken in representing both him 
and Usher as alike computing the seventy weeks from the JSfkan 

I of 



( 114 ) 

similar manner, from the Nisan in the twentieth 
year of Artaxerxes, according to his arrangement 
of it, Abp. Usher first computes the sixty nine 
'weeks or 483 years. This brings him to the Nisan 
of the Julian year 4743 and of the year 30 of the 
Christian era, in which month was celebrated the 
first passover of our Lord's public ministry. From 
his first passover he next reckons three years for 
the half week. This brings him. to the fourth pass- 
over of Christ, which fell out in the Julian year 

of the Julian year 4260. Usher undoubtedly does, but Veta- 
vius reckons them from the preceding year ; though they both 
make the first year of Artaxerxes to commence in the Julian 
year 4240, " Serl nec illud praeterire volumus- quod de du~ 
plici Artaxerxis exordio superius attigimus, utile imprimis 
" esse ad 70 Danielis hebdoniadas explicandas. Quarum ini- 
" tium ab anno Artaxerxis 20 ducimus ; eo nimirum, quo 
" edictum de instaurandis Hierosolymis ex i turn habere cospit 
" (Dan. ix. 25.) : quem calumniis ac ludincationibus aemuli 
" hactenus impedierant. Sed vicesimus iste Artaxerxis, non 
" a morlc Xerxis, sed a prtmo ejus initio, repetitur. Itaque 
" primus annorum 490, quae sunt hebdomadae annales 70, 
" convenit in A. A. C, 455, A. P. J. 4259, A. M. 3529- Sep- 
" tuagesima hebdomas iniit anno ipso, quo Christus a Johanne 
" baptismo tingitur, A. P. J. 4742. Quare anno 3 hebdoma- 
" dis Christus inteffectus est: In dhnidio (inquit Daniel ix» 
" 27.) ktbdomadis deficiet hostia et sacrificium, hoc est, in ejus 
" parte dimidia^ /48<ra£«s-tj$ fas ij^/u^&f, labente hebdomade 
u postrema, legalibus sacrificiis modus adhibebitur, quod ea 
u morientis Christ! vox indicat, Conmmmatum est." Rationar. 
Temp. par. ii. i. iii. c. 10. 

4746 



( 115 ) 

4746 and in the year 33 of the Christian era. But 
at this fourth passover our Lord suffered upon the 
cross, and thus spiritually abolished the Levitical 
sacrifices by his one great oblation of himself once 
offered # . 

The schemes of Petavius and Usher, which are 
fundamentally at least the same, seem to me to be 
as inadmissible as that of Africanus, though not al- 
together for the same reasons — 1. The chronologi- 
cal arrangement, which with some variation they 
adopt, has been shewn to be erroneous, as contra- 
dicting the universal testimony of historians re- 
specting the lengths of the reigns of Xerxes and 
Artaxerxes, and particularly as running counter to 

* The plan of Abp. Usher is introduced into the chronolo- 
gical tables at the end of the common 4to. bible: but, because 
the twentieth year of Artaxerxes according to his arrangement 
of it commenced in the year A.C. 455, they erroneously re- 
present the seventy weeks as also commencing from that year. 
Whereas, in his grace's plan, they commence, as Dr. Prideaux 
rightly states, from the Nisan of the following year 454, which 
corresponds with the Julian year 42o'0. For he supposes the 
twentieth year of Artaxerxes to commence after the Nisan in 
the year A. C. 455, and therefore to include the Nisan in the 
year A. C. 454, Consequently, the Nisan of the twentieth 
year of that prince, is, according to the Archbishop's arrange- 
ment, the Nisan of the latter of those years, not of the former 
©f them. And this, as it appears to me, is the precise point 
wherein he and Petavius differ* But see Usser, Annal. in 
A, P, J. 4259; 4260. 

pc % the 



( 116 ) 

the canon of Ptolemy. At any rate, though Peta* 
vius might elude the force of this objection by con- 
tending that he does not alter the real lengths of 
their reigns, it fully applies to the scheme of Abp. 
Usher— 2. And, even if their chronological arrange- 
ment had been unexceptionable, the interpretation 
built upon it would nevertheless be liable to various 
objections. By placing the death of Christ in the 
middle of the last week, and not attempting to- ac- 
count for the latter half of it, they in effect throw 
half of the seventieth week out of the grand prophe- 
tic period, and thus render it altogether useless and 
insignificant. The prophecy speaks expressly of 
seventy weeks: in these interpretations it is ex- 
pounded as if it spoke of no more than sixty nine 
weeks a?id a half. That the whole seventieth week 
however is significant, no less than the former part 
of it, is manifest from this circumstance: the same 
person, who causes the sacrifice and oblation to 
cease in the midst of the week, confirms the cove- 
nant with many for one week. But the person, who 
abolishes the sacrifice in the midst of the week, is 
supposed by Petavius and Usher to be Christ : 
therefore Christ must confirm the covenant with 
many for one week, which is plainly the. whole last 
week of the seventy. According to the present in- 
terpretation however, Christ is put to death in the 
middle, of the last week, during the whole of which, 

not 



( "7 ) 

not merely during the first part of it, he -was to 
confirm the covenant with many. Now we may 
easily conceive why his personal confirmation of the 
covenant with many should be particularly noticed 
in the prophecy : but it is not so easy to assign a 
reason, which his confirming the covenant during 
the half week which elapsed immediately after his 
death should be more noticed than his confirming 
it during any other period after his death *■ — 3, The 
interpretation is inconsistent also in another respect. 
According to our common English translation, Mes- 
siah is to be cut off after the sixty tivo weeks added 
to the seveji weeks, that is to say, after the sixty 
nine weeks: the interpretation represents him as 
being cut off, not precisely after the sixty nine weeks 
or at the end of them (which the word after must 

* Speaking of this hypothesis, Dr. Blayney justly asks, 
/4 How can Christ be said to have confirmed the covenant, by 

which the gospel covenant is understood, with many for one 
" week, when his ministry lasted by confession no more than 
*« the half of it ? Nor will it lessen the difficulty to allege, 
" that the same covenant continued to be prom nlged by his 
" disciples after his death for the remainder of the term. It 
" did so indeed ; but not for one week only, but for many 
" more in succession : whereas the construction of the words 
* 4 necessarily implies an action, of which the duration was li- 
** mi ted to one week only." Dissert, on the seventy weeks. 

p. IS. 

import. 



( 118 ) 

import, if it have any definite meaning), but three 
whole years subsequent to their expiration*. 

3. There is yet another hypothesis, which com- 
putes the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of 
Artaxerxes, invented by Bp. Lloyd, adopted with 
some variations by his chaplain Mr. Marshall, and 
more recently by Mr. Butt, and approved of by 
Mr. Wintle. 

These commentators maintain, that the years of 
the seventy weeks are lunar years of 360 days each, 
and that they are to be estimated without taking 
any intercalation into the account ; hence the sixty 
nine weeks y which reach unto the Messiah and which 
contain 483 such years, they reckon as being equal 
to no more than 476 solar years and % 1 days — The 
twentieth year of Artaxerxes, agreeably to the canon 
of Ptolemy, they rightly place in the year 4269 of 
the Julian period and the year A, C. 445— Reckon- 
ing then 476 solar years and 2 1 days from the Nis- 
san of this year, they are brought to the second 
month Ijar in the year 4745 of the Julian period ; 
where, consequently? they place the expiration of 
the sixty nine weeks — But, after the sixty nine weeks, 
Messiah is to be cut off. Accordingly, in the Ni* 

* The force of the important word after will be discussed 
more fully when I come to the hypothesis of Dr. Prideaux, 
who has defended the use of it in what he terms a large sense, 
that Is to say an indefinite $.en$c 9 

mn 



(119 ) 

san of the Julian year 4746, at the first passover 
after their expiration, our Lord suffered death upon 
the cross — Having thus disposed of sixty nine weeks 
out of the seventy, they entirely separate the re- 
maining single week from its predecessors ; and fix 
it, though with some variation, to the period of the 
Jewish war in which Jerusalem was sacked by the 
Horn an s under Titus. The Bishop and Mr. Mar- 
shall suppose it to have commenced about Septem- 
ber A. D. 63, when the Romans made a treaty of 
peace with the Parthians and others, and to have 
terminated in September A. D. 70, when at the 
close of its second half Jerusalem was taken bf them 
and the daily sacrifice abolished ; thus placing an 
interval of no less than 3 1 years between the end 
of the sixty ninth week and the beginning of the 
seventieth. Mr. Butt makes it commence yet later, 
and conceives it to be the seven years of the Jewish 
war, which some reckon to have begun A. D. 66 
and to have ended A. D. 73 ; about the middle of 
which war (speaking in round numbers) Jerusalem 
was taken and an end put to the daily sacrifice. 
The main argument for thus insulating the lastxveek 
is what Mr. Marshall calls its express character ; 
that is to say, the circumstance of our Lord's citing 
JDaniei's phrase the abomination of desolation, and 
his fixing the appearance of it to the time of the 

Jewish 



( no ) 

Jewish war * — At the end of the seven weeks, which 
form the first portion of the sixty nine weeks, Bp» 
Lloyd places the closing of the sacred canon by the 
addition of the book of Malachi : but Mr. Marshall 
conjectures, that the rebuilding of the city was com-* 
pleted at the time when they expired f. 

(1.) This interpretation I can as little admit as 
either of the preceding ones. To say nothing of 
the erroneousness of its very principle, for we are 
not warranted in computing a series of years by lu^ 
nar years of any description, there are many other 
additional objections to it. 

(2.) The separation of the seventieth week from 
the sixty nine weeks is a palpable and capital de? 
feet. According to the analogy of every other no* 
merical prophecy, the seventy weeks, let them begin 
when they may, must be continuous, unless some 
very irrefragable argument can be adduced to prove 
the contrary. But, in the present instance, no con-* 
elusive argument is brought to authorize the sepa-^ 
ration of the last week from its fellows. It is urged 
indeed, that the abomination of desolation mentioned 
in the 27th verse is to be referred to the era of the 

* Matt, xxiv. IS. 

f Bp. Lloyd's chronological tables Hi. iv. — Marshall's Trea? 
t on the seventy weeks — Butt's Comment, on the> prophecy 
fee fevr.nty weeks— -Wmtle's Translation Daniel in loc, 

siege 



( III ) 

siege of Jer usalem ; and therefore that the last week, 
during which a covenant is confirmed with many, 
must be similarly referred. I readily allow, that 
such is the proper arrangement of the abomination 
of desolation : and I think it sufficiently clear, that 
the half week (as Mr. Marshal! rightly understands 
the phrase rendered in our common version the 
ynidst of the week *) belongs to the same period : 
but it does not therefore follow, that this is likewise 
the case with the one week. Mr. Marshall's parti- 
cular translation indeed, " the half of the week," 
does no doubt fix the one week to the same period 
as the half week, because it represents the half 
week as being the half of the one zveek : but the ori- 
ginal may just as properly be rendered 46 the half 
of a week," which permits us to consider the one 
week and the half week as wholly distinct, the ex- 
pression being a general, not a particular, one. 
To warrant therefore our referring the seventieth 
week to the same period as the half zveek, we must 

* Dr. Prideaux agrees with Mr. Marshall in thus translating 
the original, as do likewise Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Mede ; 
and they are supported by the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Ara- 
bic, and the Greek version which bears the name of the lxx. 
Yet I think Prideaux and Marshall say too much in asserting 
that the phrase is incapable of being rendered the midst of the 
%peek. See Prideaax's Connect. Part i. B. v. p. 304— -Mar- 
shall's treatise op the seventy weeks, p. §, 254>, 

have 



( l§# ) 

have some direct proof that it ought to be so re- 
ferred : but, as far as I am able to judge, the evi- 
dence lies wholly on the opposite side of the ques- 
tion. In the 24th verse, before the prophet diviaes 
the seventy weeks into their minor constituent pe- 
riods, he gives us a very full enumeration of the 
particulars contained within them. If then the de- 
struction of Jerusalem be the special event which 
Is to designate the termination of the seventy weeks, 
as Bp. Lloyd and Mr. Marshall suppose, we may 
naturally expect to find it mentioned in the 24th 
verse : for it cannot be deemed probable, that Da- 
niel should omit this remarkable, this special, event 
in what may not improperly be termed his table of 
contents. Here however we find nothing of the sort 
alluded to, " Seventy weeks," says the prophet 
according to 1 oui 1 common translation, u Seventy 
" weeks are determined upon thy people and upon 
" thy holy city, to finish the trangression, and to 
ff make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation 
c: for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righte-* 
" ousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, 
" and to anoint the Most Holy." Such are the 
specified contents of the seventy weeks, in which 
not the slightest hint is given, that the destruction 
of Jerusalem is either comprehended within them 
or marks their termination. Surely then we cannot 
eonsider ourselves as warranted in separating the 

last 



( im ) 



last week from the sixty nine weeks, and in applying 
it thus separated to the age of the Jewish war*. 

(3.) So again : we are taught, according to our 
common translation, that sixty tzvo weeks subse- 
quent to seven weeks are to be reckoned unto Mes- 
siah the Prince, and that after those sixty two 
weeks he is to be cut off. From these terms of the 
prophecy it is argued in the present hypothesis, that 
the death of Christ is fixed to the termination of 
the sixty ?iine weeks : and, since the same sixty nine 
weeks are to be reckoned unto the Messiah, it is 

* " Nor will the case be much improved by a third hypo- 
" thesis ; which, assuming a series of shorter, that is, Chaldaic 
u years, of 360 days each, brings down the second period only 
" to the death of Christ: after which, admitting a considera* 
" ble interval, it begins again to reckon the last week a few 
" years before the destruction of Jerusalem, so as finally to 
" terminate in that catastrophe — Not to insist on the several 
*' objections that occur to other particulars, the breaking of 
" the line of time, on which the whole stress of this hypothesis 
& lies, must of itself appear in the highest degree exception- 
H able. For, either the limitation of a number of years in a 
H prediction supposes those years to follow in continued suc- 
" cession • or it is in effect no limitation at all, nor of any use 

to ascertain the precise time of the event. On the contrary, 
" how easily may the very same date be accommodated to the 
*f most distant periods imaginable, provided it be allowable to 
*f discontinue the reckoning at pleasure, and to resume it 
" again, just where it may suit the turn of a fancied hypothe« 
- <{ siso" Blayney's Dissert, on the seventy weeks, p. \6, 17. 

further 



( 124 ) 

farther argued, that the phrase unto the Messiah 
must mean unto the death of the Messiah. 

I readily concede to Mr. Marshall, in opposition 
to Dr. Prideaux, that the death of Christ must 
occur at the end of the sixty nine weeks, if we un- 
derstand the expression rendered Messiah shall be 
cut off to relate to his death : but the question is, 
how the other expression unto the Messiah can pos- 
sibly denote unto the death of the Messiah. Be-* 
tween the two expressions there is a sufficiently 
plain distinction; the favourers of the present hy- 
pothesis are necessitated to consider them as being 
of the same import # i Unto the Messiah however 
cannot, except by a strangely forced and unnatural 
construction, mean unto his death: it must, by 
every rule of ordinary phraseology, mean unto his 
coming either natural or official. But, if his coming 
be at the end of the sixty nine weeks, as it must be 
if unto the Messiah mean unto the coming of the 
Messiah, it is plainly impossible that his death 
should also be at their end. Hence it will follow, 
either that the phrase unto the Messiah means untQ 

* " Though a pretty plain distinction seems to be made be* 
« tween the time of the Messiah's appearance (ver. 25.), and tkt 
u cutting off, which is said (ver, 26'.) to be after the threescore 
H and two weeks, yet in this hypothesis both are confounded to- 
li gether, as if unto the Messiah the prince, and to his deaths 
" meant the same tking/' Kbit}. p» 1&> 17* 



( m ) 

his death, which the construction of no languages 
will warrant ; or that the other phrase, rendered 
Messiah shall be cut off] is improperly rendered. 
That the latter is the case, I have no doubt : both 
because the ordinary translation of the phrase con- 
founds his death with his coming, which can only be 
meant by the expression unto the Messiah; and 
because it disagrees wkh the arrangement, which 
places his death at the end of the seventy weeks, 
and which (I chink) may clearly be proved to be the 
right one. 

The propriety of this arrangement of his death 
appears from the enumeration of particulars as- 
cribed to the period of the seventy weeks at the 
very opening of the prophecy. Some one or more 
of these particulars must be supposed to mark their 
termination: otherwise it could not be said, that 
seventy weeks were the precise period within which 
all those particulars should be accomplished *. 
The termination however of the seventy weeks must> 
in that case, be marked by the chronologically latest 
of the particulars 'jv And the chronologically latest 
of the particulars may be proved to synchronize 
with the crucifixion^ Therefore the crucifixion 

* See this point proved below in Chap. v. § 2. 
f See Chap. v. § 2, 3. and Chap. vi. § I. 2. 
% See Chap, vi, § I. l. (1.) (2.) (3.) 2. 

must 



( V26 ) 

tetist mark the termination of the seventy weeks* 
But, if the crucifixion marks the termination of the 
seventy weeks, it cannot likewise mark the terminal 
tion of the sixty nine weeks. Consequently, the 
death of Christ is not to be placed at the close of 
the sixty nine weeks ; and the seventieth week, ter- 
minating as it does with the death of Christ, can 
not be referred to the age of the Jewish war. 

On these grounds I maintain, that the phrase 
rendered Messiah shall be cut off is erroneously ren- 
dered % because such a translation of it places the 
death of Christ at the end of the sixty nine weeks, 
and thus makes it synchronize with his coming* 
Mr. Marshall however maintains, that it is properly 
rendered ; and is thence obliged to understand the 
other phrase unto the Messiah as meaning unto his 
death. Yet, apparently as if conscious that it must 
import a coming of some sort, he labours to shew 
that unto the Messiah means unto his coming to his 
death. But I doubt, whether either the Bible or 
any book in any language will afford him an in- 
stance of the expression unto a person denoting 
unto the coming of that person to his death. If 
until John \ mean unto the commencement of Johns 

* As I shall hereafter shew, it ought to be actively tran- 
slated Messiah shall cut off, not passively Messiah shall be cut off. 
See Chap. iv. § II. 8. 

f Matt, xi. 13. Luke xvi. l6\ 

ministry, 



5 



( 127 ) 

ministry, and if unto Moses * mean unto the com- 
mencement oj the legal dispensation ; then, by ana- 
logy, unto the Messiah must mean unto the minis* 
terial coming of the Messiah or unto the commence* 
ment of the Gospel dispensation xvhich he came to 
promulgate, not surely unto his coming to his death. 
But, if unto the Messiah mean unto the commence- 
ment of h is coming in the Gospel, then the sixty nine 
weeks must expire with the beginning of John's mi-, 
nistry, because our Lord himself teaches us that 
that was the beginning of the Gospel dispensation f. 
Hence they plainly cannot expire with the death of 
Christ: and hence the phrase rendered Messiah 
shall he cut o^must be improperly rendered. 

After all, it is not unworthy of observation, that, 
severely as Mr. Marshall censures Dr. Prideaux 
for his no doubt unwarrantable extension of the 
meaning of the word after J, his own scheme is 
similarly, though not equally, deficient in chronolo- 
gical exactness. The word after pins down the 
cutting off of the Messiah, or whatever else be 
meant by the phrase, precisely to the end of the 
sixty nine weeks. To prove this, the whole of Mr. 
Marshall's reasoning upon the word, which I think 

* Rom. v. 13, 14. f See Luke xvi. l6. 

X " After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut 
" .off," Dan. ix. 2& 

perfectly 



perfectly just, is directed. Yet does he considef 
the sixty nine weeks as expiring, not with the cru- 
cifixion, but eleven months before it and at air erst 
distinguished by no event that adequately marks 
their termination. 

(4.) To all that has been said I may add another 
objection, which alike affects every scheme of inter- 
pretation that computes the seventy weeks from the 
twentieth year of Artaxerxes. They are to be reck- 
oned from the going forth of an edict to rebuild 
Jerusalem. Consequently, before any computation 
of the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of Ar- 
taxerxes can be allowed, it ought to be shewn that 
an edict was then enacted : and of such an edict I 
can find no traces in Scripture. As I have already 
observed, Artaxerxes merely authorizes Nehemiah 
to superintend the rebuilding of the city; nothing 
is said respecting any decree being enacted by him 
for that purpose. 

Perhaps it may be argued, that the word 1^1 
used by Daniel does not necessarily import a de- 
cree enacted with all the formalities of law, but 
may as well signify a mere permission or (as it is 
rendered in our common translation) a command- 
ment ; and that such a permission was granted to 
Nehemiah — To this I think it an abundantly suffi- 
cient answer to observe, that, when we consider the 
peculiar solemnity and importance of the prophecy 

and 



( m ) 

and the consequent necessity of computing the se* 

venty weeks from some remarkably determinate era, 
and when we find that three edicts had been pre- 
viously enacted with every legal formality, it is 
highly improbable that the date of the prophecy 
should be a simple verbal permission to put more 
effectually in force what had already been at least 
twice previously decreed by regular written instru- 
ments. When the whole of this circumstance is 
duly weighed, I cannot but esteem it very unlikely, 
that the Holy Spirit should design the seventy weeks 
to be reckoned, not from some one of the three 
formal instruments, duly enacted and afterwards 
carefully registered in the archives of the kings of 
"Persia*; but from a subsequent verbal permission 
to superintend the rebuilding of Jerusalem and to 
push it on with greater rapidity than it hitherto 
had been done, granted by Artaxerxes to his cup- 
bearer Nehemiah while waiting upon him at 
table f. 

It 

* Sec Ezra i.V-v. 17— vi. I, 2. 

i The phrase 12.1 «vd, here used by Daniel, seems to be the 
official law language of the day. Exactly the same expression 
is employed by the author of the book of Esther to describe 
the enacting of (what is plainly) a formal writ ten decree. See 
Esther i. 19- I would not however be understood to say, that* 
so far as the Hebrew idiom is concerned, the phrase must be 
taken officially, wherever it occurs. This must '*e determined 

K « bj 



( 130 ) 

It is urged, I am aware, by the favourers of the 
Scheme in question, that the permission granted to 
Nehemiah accords much more exactly with the 
terms of the prophecy in which the building of the 
city # is specially mentioned, than any one of the 
three written edicts : because the rebuilding of the 
temple is the chief subject of those of Cyrus and 
Darius, and because the restoration of the civil and 
ecclesiastical polity of the Jews is the chief subject 
of that of the seventh year of Artaxerxes f . 

I reply, 

toy the context : but let any one judge from the context of 
3Dan. ix. 25, whether the phrase be not there plainly used fa fe 
legal sense. 
* Dan. ix. 25. 

f " Various have been the opinions," says Mr. Butt, " con- 
*' cerning the time when the commandment to restore and 
u build Jerusalem went forth. Some have fixed upon the de- 
e ' cree of Qyrus; others, upon that of Darius; and others, 
*' upon that of the seventh year of Artaxerxes,. But, if we 
" examine the forementioned decrees as recorded in Scriptur€ y 
" we shall find that no one of them related to the rebuilding 
" of Jerusalem, its area, and wall, but to the rebuilding of the 

temple, of which there is no mention here (Dan. ix. 25.) 
" whatever. But, if we turn to the second chapter of Nehe- 
" miah, we shall find, that, in the twentieth year of Artax- 
" erxcs, Nehemiah obtained permission from that king to re- 
(t build Jerusalem, and to erect the wall of the city, which 
u consequently had not before begun to be restored- -Where, 
" let me ask, can we find any other decree recorded in Scrip- 
" ture, which corresponds to the literal, obvious, and primary 

" sense 



( 531 ) 

I reply, that, granting for the present that the 
rebuilding of the literal Jerusalem must be meant 
in the prophecy, both common sense, and other 
parallel passages of Scripture, require us to consider 
the rebuilding of the city as subincluded in any de- 
cree for (what the Jews esteemed of paramount im- 
portance) the rebuilding of the temple. Is it to be 
supposed, that, by the decrees of Cyrus and Da- 
rius, nothing more was intended than the rebuilding 
of the temple ? Would, or did. the Jews conclude 
from them, that they were authorized indeed to re- 
build their temple ; but that, when rebuilt, it was 
to stand in solitary magnificence without a single 
dwelling house in its vicinity ? The supposition is 
too absurd to be entertained for a single moment* 
We have no occasion however to depend upon ab- 
stract arguments : for, unless I be greatly mistaken, 
Scripture itself teaches us, both how we are to un- 
derstand those edicts, and how in fact the Jews 
themselves did understand them. Isaiah, mention- 
ing Cyrus even by name, twice predicts, that he 
should decree the rebuilding, not only of the tern* 
pie, but likewise of the city. " Thus saith the- 

" sense of the prediction V Butt's Commentary on the 70 
weeks, p. 12; 13, 14. It may not be amiss to observe by the 
way, how Mr* Butt, as his argument draws to a conclusion, 
transforms into a decree what at first he had very properly 
called only the permission of Artaxerxes, 

k % * Lord 



( 132 ) 

a Lord thy redeemer, and he that formed thee 
" from the womb : I am the Lord, that maketh all 
" tilings ; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone ; 
" that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; that 
" frustrateth the tokens of the lyars, and maketh 
" diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, 
a and maketh their knowledge foolish; that con- 
6tf firmeth the word of his servant, and performeth 
'< the counsel of his messengers ; that saith to Je- 
" rusalem, Thou shall be inhabited, and to the ci- 
" ties of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise 
" up the decayed places thereof ; that saith to the 
deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers; that 
u saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall per- 
<£ form all my pleasure, even in saying to Jerasa- 
€C Jem, Thou shall be built, and to the temple, Thy 
M foundations shall be kid*." And again: " I 
6< have raised him up in righteousness, and I will 
**. direct all his ways : he shall build my city T and 
'Mae shall let go my captives, not for price nor re- 
Cf ward, saith the Lord of hosts jv' Nothing can 
be more express than the words of these prophe- 
cies : but they certainly never were fulfilled, if we 
limit the decree of Cyrus to the mere rebuilding of 
the temple. Hence it is plain, to make it quadrate 
with the predictions of Isaiah, that it must be in- 



* Isaiah xliv. 24—28, 
4 



i Isaiah xlv. 13. 

terpreted. 



( 133 ) 

terpreted as enacting the rebuilding of the city, a3 
well as of the temple *. And, if it be so inter- 

* Mr. Marshall endeavours to invalidate the argument 
drawn from these texts in the following manner. 

In Isaiah xliv. 28, he maintains, that the person, who says 
to Jerusalem Thou shalt be built, is not Cyrus, but God — I 
greatly doubt, whether the present Hebrew reading will bear 
such a gloss. Bp. Lowth indeed brings out the sense, which. 
Mr. Marshall would ascribe to the passage ; but he does it by 
altering the text. Bp. Stock, on the contrary, and perhaps 
more judiciously, retains the common reading, which there 
seems to be no just cause for altering; and thence puts the 
command into the mouth of Cyrus. 

The other text, Isaiah xlv. 13, he finds more refractory, 
God there expressly says of Cyrus, He shall build my city. To 
elude the force of this text therefore, Mr. Marshall has re- 
course to two expedients. The one is, that this building of 
the city by Cyrus is to be considered as only consequentiul to 
his decree, not as enacted in it: the other is, that the word 
city is here to be understood as only denoting tlit temple — 'I he 
bare mentioning of these expedients I conceive to be an ample 
confutation of them. 

Mr. Marshall dwells much upon the city, in point of matter 
of fact, not being rebuilt until the days of Nehemiah — ll he 
mean to say, that the reedirication of the city was not com- 
pleted until then, he will find no person disposed to contract ct 
him. But this is not the point, The question is, when the 
reeuification of the city commenced. Now Mr. Marshall wishes 
to. fix its commencement to the twentieth year of Artaxerxcs. 
Hence it was necessary for him to explain away the prophecy 
Contained in Isaiah xlv. 13. How far he has succeeded in his 
attempt, let the cautious reader determine, Treatise on the- 
seventy weeks, p. 151—158, 

preted, 



( 134 ) 

preted, analogy requires that the subsequent decree 
of Darius, which is plainly a repetition and confirm 
mation of the original decree, enacted for the same 
purpose, and studiously (as it were) adopting the 
same law language, should be similarly interpret- 
ed *. Accordingly, as we may collect from their 
actions, the Jews did so interpret them ; and no 
person appears to have objected to their interpreta- 
tion, on the ground that they exceeded the limits of 
their commission, though their enemies attempted 
to impede the progress of the work, on the score of 
their former rebellions. Thus, in the days of the 
Magian Artaxerxes or Smerdis the successor of 
Cambyses, Bishjam, Mithredath, and their compa^ 
nions, write to the king to complain, that the Jews 
were come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious 
and bad city, and setting up the walls, and joining 
the foundations : upon which Artaxerxes gives com- 
mandment, that they should cause those men to 
cease, and that the city should not be built 

* If \ye may believe Josephus (and, that we may, the two 
prophecies of Isaiah seem to prove sufficiently), Ezra has given 
us no more than an abstract of the decree of Cyrus. The Jew? 
jsh historian expressly tells us, that the decree of Cyrus re- 
lated, not only to the rebuilding of the temple, but also of the 
city ; and he afterwards informs us, that the decree of Darius 
?vas a mere repetition of that of Cyrus. Joseph. Ant. Jud. lib, 
£j. cap. 1. § 2, 3. cap, 4. § 7? 

rj- Ezra iy. 7— lb*. 

Hence, 



( 135 ) 

Hence it is manifest, that the Jews were then en- 
gaged in rebuilding the city conjointly with the 
temple: and this they could only have undertaken 
by virtue of the edict of Cyrus, because no other 
edict was then in existence. Thus likewise, pre* 
vious to the commission granted by Artaxerxes to 
Nehemiah, Ezra speaks, not only of the setting up 
of the house of God, but of the building of the wall 
of the city under the protection of the kings of 
Persia *. And thus Haggai plainly represents the 
rebuilding of Jerusalem as being very considerably 
advanced in the second year of Darius immediately 
before the granting of his edict, because he re- 
proaches the Jews with dwelling in ceiled houses, 
and with running every man to his own house, 
while they neglected the work of the temple and 
suffered it to lie waste |\ That the city had not 
been rebuilt with so much rapidity as the patriotism 
of Nehemiah induced him to hope, and that many 
parts of it still lay waste in the twentieth year of 
Artaxerxes, is indeed sufficiently plain : but the 
idea, that it then only began to be rebuilt, and that 
two out of the three preceding edicts related solely 
to the building of the temple, is alike contradicted 
by Scripture, common sense, and matter of fact, 
To what has been said may be added, that the de~ 



* Ezra ix, 9, 



t Haggai I 1* 4, & 



( m ) ■ 

cree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes, which re- 
lates to the restoration of the civil and ecclesiastical 
polity of Judah, is so ample, that it is incredible 
that Ezra, with such an instrument in his hands, 
should not make the least effort to promote the re- 
building of the city. The king gives him unlimited 
powers to revive the temple service and to do for 
the house of God whatsoever is commanded by the 
God of heaven, and further authorises him to ap- 
point magistrates and judges to judge all the people 
that are beyond the river # . Now, with such pow- 
ers as these, and with the commandment of God in 
the prophecies of Isaiah before him relative to the 
rebuilding not only of the temple, but of the city, 
it is impossible to suppose that Ezra could imagine 
his authority to be so accurately confined to the 
restoration of the Jewish polity that he was not at 
liberty to rebuild a single house within the precincts 
of Jerusalem ; or, if he did imagine such a thing, 
that he would not have applied for a more extent 
sive commission, representing (as he might well 
have done) the little utility in his being permitted 
to restore the Jewish polity if he were not permitted 
to rebuild the pity also. 

XI, A second class of commentators calculate 
the seventy weeks from the days of Darius, reckonr 



* Eara vii. 21— 26. 



( 137 ) 

fug either from his third year, about which time his 
decree in favour of the Jews was enacted, or from 
his sixth year, when the tern pie was finished. This, 
on the supposition that the Darius of Ezra and Ze- 
chariah is Darius Nothns and not Darius Hystas- 
piSy will bring them either to the year in which Jeru- 
salem w r as sacked by the Romans, or about three 
years and a half beyond that time ; thus placing the 
abolition of the daily sacrifice by Titus in the midst 
of the seventieth week. Scaliger and Mr. Mede 
are the chief patrons of this hypothesis # . 

I think it superfluous to enter into a regular dis- 
cussion of its minor particulars, because the scheme 
itself is built upon a palpable chronological error. 
It is true, that, between the third year of Darius 
Not has which coincides with the year A. C. 421, 
and the year of our Lord 70 in which Jerusalem 
was taken, there are exactly 490 years : but, as I 
have already shewn, the Darius of Ezra was Da- 
rius Hyst asps, not Darius Not has ; and the date 
of his decree is nearly a century prior to the third 
year of the latter Darius. 

III. A third class of commentators reckon the 
seventy weeks from the seventh year of Artaxerxes 

* Scalig. de Emendat. tempor. lib. vi — Mede's Treatise on 
Daniel's Weeks. Works, p. 6'97 — The author of the hypothesis 
was, I believe, Sulpicius Sevevus. 

Longimanus, 



( 138 ) 

Longimanus, in which, pursuant to the royal de- 
cree, Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem attend- 
ed by a considerable body of Jews who had not hi- 
therto availed themselves of the edicts either of 
Cyrus or Darius. Now the decree of Artaxerxes 
was enacted in the month Nisan, in the year 4256 
of the Julian period and in the year A. C. 458. If 
then 490 years be computed from this era, they 
will bring us to the corresponding month Nisan in 
the year 4746 of the Julian period and in the year 
S3 of the Christian era ; in the middle of which 
month, at the time of the Jewish passover, our 
Lord was crucified : so that, between the enacting 
of the decree in the seventh year of Artaxerxes and 
the death of the Messiah, there are precisely 490 
years even to the very month. Of this hypothesis, 
variously modified, the chief patrons are Sir Isaac 
Newton and Dr. Prideaux, though it had been, 
maintained before them by Funccius * 

1. Sir Isaac supposes, that the seventy weeks re- 
late to the first coming of our Lord as a prophet \ 
and that they are to be reckoned from the seventh 
year of Artaxerxes to the crucifixion f : but he 

does 

* Sir Isaac Newton's Observ. on Daniel, chap, x— -Pri- 
deaux's Connection, part i. book v. p. 272. 

f Sir Isaac slightly differs from Dr. Prideaux in his chrono* 
logical arrangement both of the decree of Artaxerxes and of 



( 139 ) 

does not consider the smaller periods of seven 
weeks, sixty two weeks, and one week, as forming 
constituent successive parts of the greater period 
of seventy weeks, although their sum total be the 
same— The seven weeks he separates wholly from 
the sixty two weeks, adopting the punctuation of 
our common version, Unto the Anointed the Prince 
shall be seven weeks : and threescore and two weeks 
shall it return, and the streets be built and the wall, 
but in troublous times ; instead of Unto the Anoint- 
ed the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore 
and two weeks : it shall return, and the streets be 
built and the wall, but in troublous times: and sup- 
poses, that they relate to the second advent of our 
Lord, and are to be reckoned from the era of the 
yet future restoration of the Jews. Hence he con- 
siders this part of the prophecy as unfulfilled : and, 
from the mention made of a commandment going 
forth to rebuild Jerusalem at the commencement of 
the seven weeks, he conjectures, that it may not 
come forth from the Jews themselves but from 
gome other kingdom friendly to them, that it may 
precede their return from captivity, and that it may 
indeed give occasion to it — The sixty two weeks he 
separates both from the seven weeks and the one 

the crucifixion ; but he still preserves the e^act distance of 
jeyenty prophetic weeks between them. 

week ; 



( 140 ) 

week; and includes them within the compass of the 
seventy weeks, though he makes them neither begin 
nor end syn chronically with the seventy weeks : on 
the contrary, instead of reckoning them from the 
commencement of that including period, he com- 
putes them from an era considerably subsequent to 
its supposed commencement. The era, which he 
pitches upon for this purpose, is the September of 
the Julian year 4273, This he does on the ground, 
that in that month of that year the wall of the city 
was finished by Nehemiah *. Reckoning then sivty 
two weeks or 434 years from this era, he is brought 
to September in the year 4712 of the Julian period, 
at which time, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Ireneus, Eusebius, Jerome, Orosius, Cassiodorus, 
and other ancient writers, Christ was born. " How 
<c after these weeks," he adds, " Christ was cut off', 
" and the city and sanctuary destroyed by the Ro- 
(( mans, is well known" — He has now to dispose of 
the one week, and the half week. These he con- 
siders as two distinct periods, and does not suppose 
the half week to be the half of the one week — The 
week, during which our Saviour was to confirm the 
covenant with many, he conceives to be the seven 
years which elapsed between the crucifixion and 
the calling of Cornelius the first fruit of the Gen* 



* Nehem. vi. 15, 



( 141 ) 

tiles — The half week, in which he was to cause the 
sacrifice and oblation to cease, he supposes to be 
the three years and a half of the Jewish war, at the 
end of which Jerusalem was taken and the temple 
was burnt ; commencing in spring A. D. 67, and 
terminating in autumn A. D. 70. 

To this interpretation I make the following ob- 
jections — 1. The considering the smaller periods as 
wholly distinct from the seventy weeks, and as not 
being jointly constituent parts of them, is arbitrary 
and unnatural, violating the concinnity of the pro- 
phecy, and rendering the exposition of it altogether 
precarious and uncertain. Since seventy xoeeks are 
first mentioned apparently in a kind of introduction, 
and afterwards seven weeks, sixty two weeks, and 
one week ; since these seven weeks, sixty two weeks, 
and one week, make up the precise sum of seventy 
weeks ; and since all the numbers occur in one pro- 
phecy, and therefore in manifest connection with 
each other: the presumption is, that the smaller 
numbers are subdivisions of the larger number, and 
ought to be estimated as included within it — 2. 
There is only one date of commencement to be 
found throughout the whole prophecy, namely, the 
going forth of an edict to rebuild Jerusalem. Sir 
Isaac, by confining this date to the seven weeks, by 
separating those seven weeks from all the other pe- 
riods, and by making them commence from the yet 

future 



( 143 ) 

future rebuilding of Jerusalem and restoration of 
the Jews, leaves every other period without date.- 
Hence, according to this scheme, I can see no rea- 
son why the seventy weeks should begin from the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes rather than from any 
other era: still less can I discover, why the sixty 
two weeks should be reckoned from the completion 
of the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem — 3. But, 
even if there were a clear reason for thus reckoning 
the sixty two weeks, I cannot find that Nehemiah 
gives any warrant for placing the completion of the 
wall in the Julian year 4278, the latter part of 
which Sir Isaac, agreeably to his general arrange- 
ment of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, makes 
to coincide with the 28th year of that prince. Ne- 
hemiah tells us, that the king granted him permis- 
sion to go to Jerusalem, arid to superintend the re- 
building of it, in the first Jewish month Nisan iri 
the twentieth year of his reign # . A certain time 
must be allowed for his journey and for his deliver- 
ing his letters to Asaph and the governors beyond 
the river* This, arguing from the similar journey 
of Ezra f , we may estimate at about four months. 
Immediately upon his arrival, that is to say, after 
waiting no more than three days, he seems to have 



* Nehem* ii. 1, & 



f Ezra vih 8, 

begun 



( 1*3 ) 

be<nm the business of rebuilding the wall *. And 
we are at length taught, that it was finished on the 
525th day of the sixth month Elul, its rebuilding 
having taken up the space of fifty two days \. 
Thus it appears, that, from Nehemiah's setting out 
on his journey in the month JS[isan to the complet- 
ing of the wall at the latter end of the month Elul, 
there was a period of not quite half a year ; which 
will just allow about four months for his journey 
and 52 days for the building of the wall. Accord- 
ingly, both Abp. Usher and Dr. Prideaux very na- 
turally place the completion of the wall in the same 
year that Nehemiah set out from Babylon, namely 
in the year that he received his commission from 
Artaxerxes : on what grounds Sir Isaac places it 
in the 28th year of Artaxerxes, eight years later, I 
know not — 4. So again : it is difficult to conceive, 
why our Lord should be said to have confirmed the 
covenant with many during the first seven years 
after his death, rather than during any subsequent 
period. Through the instrumentality of his word 
and sacraments, he has surely been confirming the 
covenant with many, not merely for seven years, 
but down even to the present day — 5. Lastly, ac- 
cording to our common English translation, w r hich 

* Compare Nehem, ii. 11—20, iii. iv. 
f Nebem. ri. 15, 

in 



( 144 ) 

in this instance Sir Isaac Newton fellows, Messiah 
is to be cut off at the end of the sixty two weeks ; 
for such,~ as I have already observed, must (unless 
the phraseology of Daniel be altogether lax and in- 
definite) be the import of the word after : Sir Isaac 
places his birth at the end of the sixty two weeks, 
and consequently his death long after their expira- 
tion. 

% The hypothesis of Dr. Prideaux seems to me 
tQ be much more consistent than that of Sir Isaac, 
though neither is it altogether unexceptionable. 

He observes, that the first clause of the pro- 
phecy # contains an enumeration of six particulars, 
for the accomplishing of which the seventy weeks 
are said to be determined. Hence he infers, that 
all these six particulars must alike mark the termi- 
nation of the seventy weeks, the weeks expiring pre- 
cisely when all the particulars were accomplished. 
But all these particulars he maintains to have been 
accomplished in the crucifixion of our Lord. Hence 
he necessarily concludes, that the seventy weeks ex- 
pired when our Lord was crucified. 

Having thus ascertained that the seventy weeks 
terminated with the death of Christ, he reckons 
back from that era 490 years in order to arrive at 
their commencement. Now the crucifixion took 



* Dan. ix. 24. 



place 



I 145 ) 

place in the Nisan of the Julian year 4746. C con- 
sequently 490 years, reckoned back from that time, 
bring him to the Nisan of the Julian year 425 6\ 
But that year coincides with the seventh year of Ar- 
taxerxes Longimanus : and, in that very month of 
that year, Ezra received his commission to execute 
the king's decree in favour of the Jews. 

The chronology of the larger period being set- 
tled, he proceeds to inquire into the proper arrange- 
ment of the smaller periods, which he considers as 
subdivisions and component parts of the larger pe- 
riod — The seven weeks or 49 years he allots to the 
rebuilding of Jerusalem : but the whole of this re- 
building he understands figuratively; and supposes 
it to relate, not to the rebuilding of the literal Je- 
rusalem, but to the reformation of the desolate Le- 
*vitical Church and the restoration of the divinely 
ordained civil polity of Judah by Ezra and Nelie* 
miah. At the end of the seven weeks he places 
Nehemiah's last act of reformation ; by which the 
mystic holy city, here described (in metaphorical 
language familiar to the sacred writers) under the 
name of Jerusalem, was completed, the work of its 
allegorical reediflcation being carried on (as we re- 
peatedly learn from the scriptural history of it) in 
troublous times and amidst great opposition from 
enemies — To the seven weeks he adds the sixty two 
tyeeks ; the sum of vvhich, or sixty nine weehs y 

\ reaches 



( 146 ) 

reaches, according to the prophet, unto Messiah 
the Prince. These sixty, nine weeks then, or 4 $3= 
years, reckoned from the seventh year of Artax- 
erxes, in which their including period of seventy 
weeks commences, are made, m the scheme of Dr, 
Prideaux, to, bring us exactly to the coming of 
Christ in his official capacity : for, the seventh year 
of Artaxerxes coinciding with the year 4256 of the 
Julian period, 483 years calculated from that time 
will carry us down to the year 4739 of the same 
period, which the Dean maintains to be that fif- 
teenth year of Tiberius Cesar mentioned by St, 
Luke as being the year in which the ministry of the 
Gospel commenced by the preaching of John the 
Baptist our Saviour's forerunner # — The one week+ 
during which the Messiah was to make firm a co- 
venant with many, and the half week, in which he 
was to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,. 
now remain to be accounted for. This single week 
Dr. Prideaux arranges immediately consecutive ta 
the sixty nine weeks : and supposes it to commence 
with the first preaching of the Gospel by John the 
Baptist in the Julian year 4739 ; and to expire at 
the crucifixion in the Julian year 4746,. synchronic 
eally (as it necessarily must do, being the last week} 
with the seventy weeks. It was divided exactly into 



* Luke iiul,. 



( 147 ) 

two halves : for the ministry of John the Baptist 
lasted three years and a half, and the personal mi- 
nistry of our Lord himself lasted three years and a 
half more ; the two periods conjointly making up 
seven years or one week of years. The whole of 
the latter half week was employed in causing the 
efficacy of the legal sacrifices to cease : and this was 
at length completed, and all the sacrifices of the law 
were rendered a dead letter, by the alone efficacious 
sacrifice of Christ upon the cross — But it is said, 
that Messiah should be cut off after sixty two 
weeks ; that is to say, after sixty two weeks added 
to seven weeks, or after sixty nine weeks: here 
therefore a question arises, how this declaration, 
quadrates with an exposition, which places his cut- 
ting off at the end of the seventy weeks ? Dr. Pri- 
deaux replies, that the word after must be under- 
stood in a large sense, as not denoting immediately 
after, but some time after: and he argues, that such 
must necessarily be its meaning; because otherwise 
we should make the coming of Christ (which is fixed 
to the end of the sixty two weeks subsequent to the 
seven weeks by the phrase unto the Messiah ) coin- 
cident with his cutting off, and thus allow no inter- 
mediate space for his ministry. 

The numerical part of the prophecy being thus 
arranged, he next discusses that part of it which 
relates to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. 

lS the 



( 148 ) 

The people of the prince that should come he con- 
ceives to be the Roman armies ; and the prince 
himself that should come, their general Titus. Un- 
der his command, they overflowed Judea like a tor- 
rent, and begirt Jerusalem with their ensigns, those 
abominations of desolation, which our Saviour, in 
allusion to this prophecy, had forewarned his disci- 
ples of. 

With much that is excellent, this scheme contains 
also some matters that are liable to objection — 1. 
I can see no reason, why we should suppose, that 
all the particulars enumerated in the exordium of 
the prophecy alike mark the termination of the se- 
venty weeks : it seems more agreeable to the lan- 
guage there used by Daniel to conclude, that a pe- 
riod of seventy weeks, reckoned from some edict to 
rebuild the city, should comprehend them all ; so 
that some one or more indeed should mark its ter- 
mination (for this is plainly and necessarily required 
by the very terms in which the prophecy is couch- 
ed), but that the remainder should occur during its 
lapse and before its termination. " Seventy weeks 
" are determined upon thy people and upon thy 
" holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make 
" an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for ini- 
" quity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, 
" and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to 
" anoint the most Holy." Without at present dis- 
cussing 



( 149 ) 

cussing the propriety of this version in all points, 
the most probable opinion that we can form of the 
meaning of the passage is, that, of the several par- 
ticulars here enumerated, some should take place 
either earlier or later in the course of the seventy 
weeks, and that others should take place exactly at 
their end, thus definitely marking their termination : 
and this, if I mistake not, we shall hereafter find 
to be the case — % As I believe, that Dr. Prideaux 
has arranged several of the particulars erroneously 
fey fixing them all equally to the close of the seventy 
weeks ; so I think, what indeed necessarily follows 
from this faulty arrangement, that in more than one 
instance he has misunderstood their import — 3. His 
gloss upon the word after, where it is said that 
4£ after threescore and two weeks Messiah shall be 
€i cut off," is to me altogether unsatisfactory. He 
is perfectly right in supposing, that unto the Mes- 
siah cannot possibly mean unto his death; and it is 
manifest, that they, who reckon the sixty nine weeks 
both unto the Messiah and unto his crucifixion, 
either give the phrase unto the Messiah a sense 
which it cannot bear, or allow no space for Christ's 
ministry : but still the question will recur, how far 
the plain words of the prophecy will authorise this 
gloss of Dr. Prideaux? Wherever certain numbers 
are specified, our interpretation must be adapted to 
the plain letter of such specification ; not the spe- 
> cificatioa 



0 



( ISO ) 

cification so explained away from its obvious mean- 
ing as to suit the interpretation which we may wish 
to adopt. Now let any person judge, when it is 
said, that unto Messiah the prince there should be 
seven weeks and sixty two weeks ; and when it is 
next said, that Messiah should be cut off (as the 
original is rendered in our translation and as it is 
understood by Dr. Prideaux) after the sixty two 
weeks subsequent to the seven weeks : let any per* 
son judge, whether the precise termination of the 
sixty two zveeks is not plainly to be marked by the 
cutting off of the Messiah, I believe indeed, as I 
have already intimated, that the original phrase is 
improperly translated : but this circumstance does 
in no wise affect the present argument. Let the 
expression mean what it may, the event described 
by it, whether it be the death of the Messiah or 
something else, must either completely take place (if 
it be momentary in its nature), or begin to take place 
(if it be not momentary in its nature), precisely at 
the expiration of the sixty two weeks subsequent to 
the seven zveeks. By understanding the word after 
in what Dr. Prideaux calls a large seme, we de- 
stroy all the defmiteness of a numerical prophecy : 
for it were of little use to specify the number sixty 
tzvo, if after sixty two zveeks meant no more than 
indefinitely subsequent to them. Such an explana- 
tion wholly destroys that precision of phraseology 

necessary 

l 



{ 151 ) 

necessary to render any language certainly Intelli- 
gible. Were we to say, that Charles the second of 
England succeeded to the throne after his father's 
death, we should not, it is true, speak an absolute 
falsehood: but who does not perceive, that we 
should express ourselves with such a strange degree 
of inaccuracy as no language can tolerate^ who 
does not perceive, that in this sense of the word 
sifter we might say with equal truth that the third 
Creorge reigned after the first Charles ? Since the 
death of our Saviour takes place (according to Dr. 
Prideaux) at the end of the seventy weeks, it is in- 
credible, that the prophet, if speaking of that death 
in the phrase w T hich is rendered Messiah shall be 
■cut off] should declare that it should occur after 
sixty two weeks subsequent to seven weeks, when he 
might so easily have expressed himself with perfect 
accuracy by foretelling that it should happen after 
sixty three weeks subsequent to seven weeks, thus 
by the definite word after fixing it precisely to the 
termination of the seventy weeks, if the death of 
Christ then be meant by the original phrase which 
our version renders' Messiah shall be cu t ojf it cer- 
tainly must be fixed (as Bp. Lloyd, Mr, Marshall, 
and Mr. Butt, rightly maintain) to the termination 
of the sixty two weeks subsequent to the seven 
weeks, that is to say, to the termination of the sixty 
nine weete* But, in this case; the objection to their 

hypothesis, 



( 152 ) 

hypothesis, which I have already noticed, will still 
recur : by acknowledging (as they must do) that 
the sixty nine weeks reach unto the Messiah, and by 
yet placing the death of the Messiah at the end of 
the sixty nine weeks, they are compelled to interpret 
unto the Messiah as denoting unto the death of the: 
Messiah ; an interpretation, which the usage of no 
language will tolerate. In short, both schemes are 
equally objectionable in this particular, though on 
different accounts. The one produces a consistent 
and rational explanation indeed, but which the let- 
ter of the prophecy will not warrant. The other 
proposes to adhere to the letter of the prophecy, 
and interprets the word after as it doubtless ought 
to be interpreted ; but it produces an explanation, 
which -the phraseology of no language will bear, be- 
cause it makes unto the Messiah to mean unto the 
death of the Messiah. Nor yet, after all, does it 
adhere to the letter of the prophecy, though it claims 
to do so as its peculiar and exclusive excellence. 
As I have already observed, instead of placing th§ 
death of Christ precisely at the end of the sixty nine 
weeks, which the word after requires if his death be 
spoken of in the phrase rendered Messiah shall be 
cut off, it makes the sixty nine weeks expire little 
less than a year before the crucifixion # — 4« So 

again ; 

* Mr. Marshall objects, at considerable length and with 
mucli force of argument, to this unwarrantable gloss of Dr. 

yrideau^ 



( 153 ) 

again : Dr. Prideaux supposes the prince that shall 
come, who is mentioned in the S6th verse, to be 

Titus ; 

Prideaux upon the word after. He observes also, and with 
equal justice, that the system of Mr. Lancaster, which places 
(as we shall shortly see) tJie cutting off of the Messiah in the 
middle of the last week and therefore three years and a half 
subsequent to the expiration of the sixty nine weeks, is simi- 
larly unwarrantable, though not to so great an extent. He 
might also have extended his censure to Sir Isaac Newton, Pe- 
tavius, and Usher; the two last of which writers, like Mr, 
Lancaster, place the death of Christ about half a prophetic week 
after the end of the sixty nine weeks. He does not however 
seem at all to consider, that his arguments may be turned 
against himself. His own hypothesis is equally objectionable 
in kind, though not in degree, with those which he so. justly 
censures. He, in common with all these authors, supposes, 
that the original expression ought to be translated Messiah, 
shall be cut off ; and thence, upon such a supposition, unan^ 
swerably maintains, that the cutting off of the Messiah is fixed 
by the preposition after to the termination of the sixty nine 
weeks. Yet does he place the crucifixion, not precisely at the 
end of the sixty nine weeks, but eleven months after their end. 
In short, the only difference is this: Dr. Prideaux places the 
cutting off of the Messiah seven years after the expiration of 
the sixty nine weeks ; Petavius, Abp. Usher, and Mr. Lancas- 
ter, about half a prophetic week ; Sir Isaac Newton, the whole 
duration of Christ's life; and Bp. Lloyd, Mr, Marshall, and 
Mr. Butt, about eleven months. If the preposition after is to 
"be understood as definitely marking the end of the sixty nine 
weeks, which Mr. Marshall argues unanswerably to be the 
case ; then his hypothesis is untenable even upon his own prin- 
ciples. After his just, though somewhat vehement, censure of 

X>r, 



( 154 ) 



Titm ; and yet conceives, that the person who is to 



context of the passage will not allow, as must, I 
think, appear to any person who attentively consi- 
ders it. M After threescore and two weeks shall 

Dr« Prideaux's large sense of the word after, it is not a little 
curious to observe himself claiming to take a similar, though 
not quite so extensive, a liberty with this same word. " Since," 
Says he, " we rind these words literally and expressly in the 
" prophecy, After threescore and two. weeks shall Messiah be cut 
*' of, we are necessarily tied down to the cutting off of the Mes- 
" siah, if not strictly and immediately after the very day of their 
4i expiration, however so far forth after, as that it was impos- 
«* sible for so much as one whole year of another week to pass 
(i away without the accomplishment of this grand event of this 
" predicted period/' The meaning of which in plain English 
is this : it is perfectly warrantable to extend the signification 
of after nearly a whole year, because such extension is neces- 
sary for Mr. Marshall's hypothesis ; but it is quite unwarrant- 
able in others to extend it three years and a half or seven 
years. Yet who does not see, that, if not Dr. Prideaux, yet 
Petavius, Usher, and Lancaster, might have argued with little 
less speciousness, that the death of the Messiah was so tied 
down by the text to the end of the sixty nine weeks, that he 
must be cut off, " if not strictly and immediately after the very 
day of their expiration, however so far forth after, as that it 
was impossible for so much as another whole week to pass 
" away without the accomplishment of this great event of this 



" predicted period ?" See Marshall's Treatise on the seventy 
weeks, p. 200— 215. 




" Messiah 



( 155 ) 

" Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the 
iC people of the prince that shall come shall destroy 
" the city and the sanctuary ; and the end thereof 
" shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the 
" war desolations are determined. And he shall 
" confirm the covenant with many for one week : 
" and in the midst of the week he shall cause the 
" sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the over- 
" spreading of abominations he shall make it deso- 
" late even until the consummation, and that de- 
" ternained shall be poured upon the desolate." 
Now, unless we suppose Daniel to pass in a most 
unaccountable manner from Titus the prince that 
should come to Christ zvho confirms the covenant, 
and then from Christ who confirms the covenant to 
Titus zvho makes it desolate, we must allow, that 
the prince that should come (whoever he may be) 
is the person uniformly spoken of from the first 
mention of him to the end of the prophecy. And, 
in that case, if the prince that should come be Titus, 
then Titus must be alike the person who confirms 
the covenant with many and the person who makes 
it desolate. Dr. Prideaux's interpretation therefore 
of the prince that should come necessarily overturns 
his interpretation of the one week (for the two can- 
not stand together), and would compel us rather 
to refer that one week (namely the seventieth week) 
to the era of the Jewish war, as Bp. Lloyd, Mr. 

Marshall, 



( 156 ) 

Marshall, and Mr. Butt (though with some varia- 
tions), do refer it : but then, as I have already 
stated, by adopting this latter hypothesis, we sepa- 
rate the one week from the sixty nine weeks, and 
thus make in the chronology of the prophecy a 
break which seems to me intolerable — 5. There is 
another capital objection to the scheme of Dr. Pri- 
deaux. He understands the abolition of the sacri- 
fice arid oblatio7i in the half week to mean the spiri- 
tual abolition of the Levitical sacrifices, first by the 
preaching of our Lord during the latter half of the 
seventieth week, but chiefly by his one sacrifice of 
himself at the end of it. Now the plain untortured 
context of the passage will compel any unpreju- 
diced person to conclude that this abolition synchro- 
nizes with what in our version is rendered and for 
the overspreading of abominations he shall make it 
desolate. But this latter clause must relate, as Dr. 
Prideaux himself justly explains it, to the era of 
the Jewish war in which Jerusalem was sacked by 
Titus. Therefore, since the former clause evidently 
describes something synchronical, the abolition of 
the sacrifice, thus synchronizing with the siege of 
Jerusalem, must mean the literal abolition of the 
Levitical sacrifices, which (as it is well known) was 
then effected. In this manner accordingly it is 
very properly interpreted by Lloyd, Marshall, Butt, 
Mede, Scaliger, and (as we shall presently see) by 

Blayney 



( 1^7 ) 

Blayney — 6\ It may finally be objected to Dr. Pri- 
deaux, that he understands the rebuilding of Jeru- 
salem figuratively, instead of literally ; and that 
he makes the Julian year 4739 to synchronize with 
the fifteenth year of Tiberius when John is said by 
St. Luke to have commenced his ministry, whereas 
according to Ptolemy it synchronizes with the twelfth 
year of that prince : but, as I think him right in 
both these particulars, I shall reserve my defence of 
them to a future part of this work. 

3. Cornelius a Lapicle, after discussing other 
systems, gives the preference to that which com- 
putes the seventy weeks from the seventh year of 
Artaxerxes. He asserts however, that not the se- 
venty weeks themselves, but that sixty nine weeks 
and a half, expire with the crucifixion ; by which 
great event he thus supposes the Levitical sacrifices 
to have been spiritually abolished in the middle of 
the seventieth week. This arrangement of the cru- 
cifixion fixes the baptism of Christ to about the ter~ 
mination of the sixty nine weeks. Hence he argues, 
that unto the Messiah, by which he understands 
unto the commencement of the personal ministry of 
the Messiah, there were sixty nine weeks agreeably 
to the declaration of the prophecy *. 

* Cornel, a LapicL Comment, in Dan, in loc, p. 1353, 
1354, 

This 



( 158 ) 

This scheme, were it chronologically accurate, 
would certainly be less objectionable than some 
others : but the misfortune is, that it is built upon 
a gross error in calculation. Between the enacting 
of the decree of Artaxerxes in the seventh year of 
his reign and the crucifixion of the Messiah, there 
are not sixty nine weeks and a half or 486- years, 
but precisely seventy weeks or 490 years. 

IV. A fourth class of commentators would adopt 
the first year of Cyrus as the date of the prophecy, 
an opinion anciently advanced by Eusebius and 
Clemens Alexandrinus. 

1. Among these Dr. Blayney, the late eminently 
learned professor of Hebrew in the University of 
Oxford, has proposed an inter pretatio l which differs 
radically and essentially from all those that have 
hitherto been considered, inasmuch as it is founded 
on a complete alteration of the numbers which here- 
tofore have been the basis of every exposition. His 
authority for this alteration is partly the Greek ver- 
sion of Daniel by the lxx, the manuscript of which 
has long been sought after, and has at length been 
discovered in the Chigian library at Rome m ; and 
partly conjectural emendations of this version, de- 

* I have already observed, that the Greek version, which 
generally bears the name of the lxx, seems to have been the 
"Work of Theodotioii* 

duced 



( 159 ) 

dueed in a measure from two Hebrew manus- 
cripts # . 

* My remarks on Dr. Blayney's interpretation wilt be ren<* 
dered more clear by exhibiting in one point of view his trans- 
lation of the prophecy, 

24. Weeks sufficient have been terminated (or completed) 
upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to check the revolts, 
and to put an end to sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, 
and to bring again the righteousness of ancient times, and to- 
seal {that is, authenticate) the divine oracle and the pro- 
phet, and to anoint {that is, sanctify anew) the most holy 
things. 

25. And thou shalt know and understand, that from the 
going forth of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah 
the Prince shall be seventy and seven weeks and threescore 
and two years : it shall be rebuilt, still enlarging itself and be- 
coming more and more considerable, even amidst times of dis- 
tress. 

S6. And, after the times seventy and seven and threescore 
and two, Messiah shall cut off from belonging to him both the 
city and the sanctuary ; the prince that shall come shall de- 
stroy the people ; and the cutting off thereof shall be with a 
flood {that is, a hostile invasion); and unto the end of a war 
carried on with rapidity shall be desolations. 

27. But he shall confirm a covenant (or make a firm cove- 
nant) with many for one week : and in the midst of the week 
he shall cause the sacrifice and meat-offering to cease ; and 
the abomination of desolation shall be upon the border {that is? 
encompassing and pressing close upon the city and the tem- 
ple) ; and an utter end, even a speedy one {or even until an. 
utter end, and that a speedy one) ? shall be poured upon the 
desolated* 

Instead 



( 160 ) 

Instead of the numbers seven and sixty two id 
the 25th verse, and the number sixty two in thd 
26th verse, the translation in question reads in both 
places seventy seven and sixty two* ; adding in one 
of the places the word times f to the number se* 
venty seven, and in the other place the word years j* 
to the number sixty two. In this translation there- 
fore, the reading in the 25th verse is seventy seven 
times and sixty two; and that in the 26th verse, se* 
venty seven and sixty two years. 

Of neither of these readings much sense can be 
made : Dr. Blayney therefore, to improve them, 
has recourse to conjectural emendation, resting how- 
ever in part upon a very ancient manuscript in the 
Bodleian library catalogued Laud A. 162, and pre- 
sumed to be not less than 800 years old. That ma- 
nuscript, in the 25th verse, prefixes 1 to DW, and 
substitutes the word T\W for the word Tty^Lffl'- so that; 
instead of X2*im DW nVZW mf S&t 

which both our translation, and every one of the anci- 
ent versions §, renders seven weeks and sixty and two 
weeks, it reads OW) EWiBtt PUttf D'SOC?, 

seventy years and weeks both sixty and two. The 
first reading then of the Chigian Greek manuscript* 

* 'EttU ?tat iffiop'/iKOvrct synovia, ovo. 

■\ Kai^s?. J Etcc>i>. 

§ At least so the Syriac and Arabic read in the Latin tran- 
stations of them, 

in 



I m ) 

in the 25th verse, is seventy seven times and sixty 
tzvo : its second reading, in the 26th verse, is se- 
venty seven and sixty two years : and the reading 
of the Laud Bodleian Hebrew manuscript is se- 
venty years and zveeks both sixty and two. Out of 
these three readings Dr. Blayney selects, by the aid 
of conjecture, what he maintains to have been the 
genuine original reading of the 25th verse, seventy 
and seven weeks and threescore and tzvo years. 

The true reading of the 26th verse he supposes 
to be the times seventy and seven and threescore and 
tzvo. This slight difference between the readings 
in the two verses, which (as he rightly observes) 
must be understood to speak of one and the same 
period, he makes on the authority of another ancient 
Bodleian manuscript catalogued Huntingdon, No. 
12, which immediately subsequent to and 
after inserts D*n^n the times. This reading he 
conceives to be the origin of the xaipss in the Chi- 
gian Greek manuscript. 

The seventy weeks in the 24th verse, with which 
the prophecy opens, still remain to be accounted 
for. Here Dr. Blayney makes no alteration in the 
original expression, except reading the first word 
Eynnty instead of which is warranted by 

the collation of Dr. Kennicott and de Rossi, and 
which the Masoretic punctuation considers as the 
proper reading. But, instead of translating it weeks 

M seventy^ 



( 362 ) 

seventy, he renders it weeks sufficient. To the verb 
"jnrU in connection with it he ascribes, what un- 
doubtedly appears to be its primitive import, the 
sense of cutting ; but he supposes it here to denote 
cutting off in the sense of finishing. Hence he 
translates the whole clause weeks sufficient have 
been finished or terminated. 

On these important alterations he builds the fol- 
lowing exposition. 

Instead of considering the sufficient weeks pro- 
spectively, as all those interpreters do who render 
the original expression seventy weeks, he conceives 
them to mean the seventy years of desolations spoken 
of at the beginning of the chapter % which were on 
the point of terminating at the time when the pro- 
phecy was delivered. Hence he necessarily consi- 
ders all the particulars ascribed to the sufficient 
weeks and enumerated in the ,24th verse, as accom- 
plished at the expiration of the Babylonian captivity 
of seventy years — To establish this hypothesis, he 
translates the first clause of that verse to check the 
revolt instead of to finish the transgression; observ- 
ing very justly, that " is not a generic term 
" for every transgression, but marks that partial- 
" lar species which consists in withdrawing the al- 
" legiance that is due to a lawful sovereign" 



* Dan. ix. 2. 



( m ) 

Now, the constitution of Israel being a theocracy, 
idolatry, which was practised so constantly by the 
people before the captivity, was strictly a revolt 
from their heavenly king. But, after their return 
from captivity, they did not, at least nationally and 
generally they did not, relapse into their former 
idolatrous practices f» So far therefore the seventy 
years desolation of Jerusalem might properly be 
said to have been designed to check the revolt — ■ 
The three next clauses he renders to put an end to 
sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to 
bring again the righteousness of ancient times. 
These particulars, thus linked together, he considers 
as " so perfectly corresponding with the design of 
" every wise and good governor in inflicting punish- 
" ment, that no argument seems necessary to jus- 
" tify their application to that severe but whole- 
" some discipline, with which God had been pleased 

* Dr. Blayney states the matter in far too unqualified terms, 
'when he says, " After the return of the Jews from Babylon? 
" we do not find that they ever again relapsed into their for- 
" mer idolatrous courses/' As a nation they might not, nor 
might idolatry be ever again publicly established and supported 
by the government : but, as Bp. Horslcy observes, " f rom the 
" time of Antiochus Epiphanes to the last moments of the 
tl Jewish polity, there was a numerous and powerful faction 
11 among them, which in every thing affected the Greek man- 
" ncrs ; and the Hellenising party were idolaters to a man,"' 
Translation of Hosea. p. 8. 

M 2 " tO 



( 164 ) - 

" to visit and chastise his chosen people in the tem> 
" porary desolation of their country*" — The fifth 
clause he translates to seal the divine oracle and the 
prophet. By the prophet here mentioned, he un- 
derstands Jeremiah^ who was commissioned to de- 
liver the prophecy of the seventy years captivity : 
and, by sealing the oracle and the prophet who re- 

* In explaining himself more particularly, Dr. Blayney af- 
terwards says, " If the punishment inflicted on the Jews proved 
6i the means of recovering them from their backslidings and 
<c idolatry, of expiating their iniquity, and working in them a 
<c thorough reformation and amendment, it would of course 
tl be a means of restoring them to the divine favour" (Dissert, 
on the seventy weeks, p. 22.). Now, although isa be not al- 
ways used in the Levitical sense of atonement by vicarious expi- 
atory sacrifice ; yet, since the English expression to make atone- 
ment for iniquity seems (in treating of theological subjects) to 
be limited to the strict Levitical acceptation of the verbal can- 
not refrain from thinking, that, as the professor evidently un- 
derstands it extra-levitically, he would have acted more ju- 
diciously had he translated it differently. His present version 
of it, when explained by the accompanying gloss, might cer- 
tainly lead an incautious reader to suppose, that Dr. Blayney 
was inclined to advocate the strange crude notion which we 
sometimes hear advanced, that our sufferings here make a sort 
of atonement for the sins' which we may have committed, that in 
consequence of them we shall be punished less severely hereafter, 
that this world in short is a kind of terrestrial purgatory, I 
think indeed, that the clause ought to be translated as Dr. 
Blayney has translated it ; but then I think likewise, that it 
ought to be understood in a very different manner* 

sealed 



( 165 ) 

scaled it, he conceives to be meant the authenticat- 
ing their truth ; which was done, when the predic- 
tion was accomplished by the commencement of the 
restoration of Judah and of the rebuilding of the 
temple and city in the first year of Cyrus — The last 
clause he translates to anoint the most holy things. 
This he applies to the sanctifying anew of the tern- 
pie and sacred vessels. 

He now proceeds to the date of the vision as 
mentioned in connection with the numbers seventy 
seven weeks and threescore and two years, which he 
substitutes for those that occur in the 25th verse — 
The period so specified he computes from the first 
year of Cyrus, when the original decree respecting 
the rebuilding of the temple and city was enacted. 
Now seventy seven prophetic weeks are equal to 
539 years. Consequently, if we compute this num- 
ber of years from the year A. C. 536, which is al- 
lowed to be the date of the decree of Cyrus, we 
shall come to the fourth year of the Christian era. 
But the birth of Christ (he says) is generally ac- 
knowledged to have been in the third or fourth year 
before the commencement of that era. It will fall 
therefore within the course of the seventy seventh 
week — As he supposes, that the seventy seven weeks 
are to be reckoned to the nativity of Christ or his 
first coming in the flesh ; so he conceives, that the 
sixty two years are to be reckoned forward to his 

figurative 



( 166 ) 

figurative coming to destroy Jerusalem *. If there-? 
fore we compute sixty two years from the termina- 
tion of the seventy seven weeks in the year of our 
Lord 4, we shall be brought to the year 66, the yery 
year in which the Jewish war broke out. 

During the whole of the compound period seventy 
seven weeks and sixty two years, the rebuilding of 
Jerusalem was going on in troublous times ; lor, 
notwithstanding it was five times taken in the coursa 
of it, it continued to increase in consideration, until, 
at the era when it was sacked by Titus, it had at- 
tained to such a pitch of splendor, magnificence, 
and strength, as it had never known before even 
under the most powerful and independent of its 
monarehs. 

In the 26th verse, the same numbers seventy 
seven and sixty two again occur, though with a tri- 
fling difference in the phraseology, the general ex- 
pression times, according to Dr. Blayneys emenda- 
tion, being connected with them both. Our com- 
mon version here reads, that, after the period spe- 
cified, whatever it may be, Messiah shall be cut off] 
hut not for himself; and the people of the prince 
that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanc- 
tuary : but Dr. Blayney translates the passage, 
Messiah shall cut off from belonging to him both 

"* Matt. xvL 2§* xxiv. % 



( 167 ) 

the city and the sanctuary ; the prince that shall 
come shall destroy the people. Accordingly, in the 
course of the Jewish war, which commenced at the 
end of the seventy seven weeks and sixty two years, 
Christ, the predicted Prince that should come, cut 
off from belonging to him both the city and the 
sanctuary, and by the instrumentality of the Ro- 
mans overwhelmed the people with a tremendous 
destruction. 

Yet, nevertheless, for one week he was to confirm 
the covenant with many. This single week Dr. 
Blayney applies to the seven years of the Jewish 
war, commencing exactly where the sixty-two years 
terminated. The many he supposes to be the 
Christians, shut up for a season with the Jews in 
Jerusalem. The covenant is our Lord's assurance, 
that, though the unbelievers should be swallowed up 
in the days of vengeance, not a hair of their heads 
should perish * Accordingly, as it is well known, 
after Cestius had invested Jerusalem and had shut 
up nearly the whole nation within its walls assem- 
bled together at the feast of tabernacles, he sud- 
denly in a most unaccountable manner withdrew 
his troops to a distance, and thus gave the Chris- 
tians an opportunity of availing themselves of their 



* Luke xxi, 18, lp. 



Lords 



( 168 ) 

Lord's admonition and of making their escape from 
that devoted city. 

In the midst of the week however, Messiah, by 
the agency of his instruments, was to cause the sa- 
crifice and oblation to cease. Thus, in the middle 
of the seven years *, Jerusalem was taken and de- 
stroyed, the temple burnt, and an end for ever put 
to the Levitical service |„ 

(I.) That the praise of no ordinary ingenuity is 
due to this interpretation, and that it obviates many 
difficulties which every other may be charged with, 
few will be disposed to deny : but to admit it re- 
quires a spirit of adventurous criticism, which I 
freely acknowledge myself at least not to possess. 
Yet I would not rashly throw aside an hypothesis, 
Vierely because it is deeply tinctured with this spirit 
So much have the interests of sacred literature been 
promoted by the labours of a professor, whose loss 
is still deplored in the University to which he was, 
so bright an ornament, that nothing which he has 
advanced ought to be lightly regarded. Let us 
then examine, with caution and sobriety, how far 
we are warranted in admitting or rejecting the gi- 

* That is, as Dr. Blayney allows, about the middle. The 
fact is, according to his arrangement of the seven years of the 
Jewish war, the daily sacrifice ceased at the beginning of the 
fifth year. 

* Blayney 's Dissert, on the seventy weeks, 

ganfck 



( 169 ) 

gantic alterations which Dr. Blayney has pro- 
posed. 

We may first observe, that no one manuscript 
authorises them in toto : they are culled in a man- 
ner perfectly arbitrary from three different manu- 
scripts and the common Hebrew text. The first of 
the manuscripts reads seventy seven times and sixty 
two, and seventy seven and sivty two years* ; the 
second reads seventy years and weeks both sixty 
and tw&f; and the third reads, in the 2,6th verse, 
the times the weeks sixty and two + : while the read- 
ing of our common Hebrew bibles, in the 25th verse 
where the full number is given, is zveeks seven and 
weeks sixty and two. From all these Dr. Blayney 
selects at pleasure the reading seventy seven weeks 
and sixty two years for the 25th verse, and the read- 
ing the times seventy seven and sixty two for the 
26th verse — Nor does he select the constituent 
members of these two approved readings from the 
precise places where they stand in the manuscripts. 
The word times occurs in the Chilian manuscript 
in the 25th verse : in the Huntingdon Bodleian ma- 

* The Chigian Greek MS. of the lxx. 

\ lleb. MS. Bodleian, catalogued Laud A. 

+ Hcb. MS. Bodleian, catalogued Huntingdon. No. 12. 
"* his manuscript, Dr. Blayney says, inserts the tunes immedi- 
ately after th£ word after. 

nuscript, 



( 170 ) 

nuscript, it occurs in the 26th verse f,. Dr. Blay- 
ney rejects it from his reading in the 25th verse, 
and adopts it in his reading in the 26th verse — The 
Chigian manuscript omits years after sixty two in 
the 25th verse, and places it after sixty two in the 
26th verse : the Laud Bodleian manuscript omits 
years after sixty two, and substitutes it for seven 
after seventy : the Huntingdon Bodleian manuscript 
omits it altogether. Dr. Blayney refuses to substi- 
tute it for seven and to place it after seventy on the 
authority of the Laud Bodleian manuscript, or to 
place it after the full number seventy seven; but 
places it exclusively after sixty two — The word 
weeks no where occurs in the Chigian manuscript : 
but, in the Laud Bodleian manuscript, it is attached 
to the second number sixty two, while the years are 
said to be seventy. Dr. Blayney places weeks after 
the first number, which he reads seventy seven; and 

* I strongly suspect, that the word C3*ntfn the times, which 
occurs in this manuscript immediately after the word after at 
the beginning of the 26th verse, and which Dr. Blayney con- 
siders as a reading of no small importance, has crept into the 
text solely through the error of some careless transcriber who 
wrote the manuscript in question. It is observable, that 
tpwn is the last word in the 25th verse. The eye of the 
transcriber glancing upon it as he was beginning to copy the 
26th verse, he has a second time written it through inadver- 
tency after nnHI, where it ought not to have been written. 



years* 



( 171 ) 

years, after the second number sivty two — Now 
surely the whole of this must be considered as 
purely arbitrary and uncertain ; and we can place 
little reliance upon readings, thus culled at plea- 
sure, and combined into a sentence which we are 
required to receive as the genuine declaration of 
God's Holy Spirit. How much indeed Dr. Blay- 
ney is compelled to have recourse to conjecture, and 
how little satisfied he is with the Chigian manus- 
cript in its present form, is manifest from his own 
testimony respecting it. " In it," says he, " though 
" there appears much mangling, interpolation, and 
" transposition, some valuable readings have been 
W preseryed." 

We may next observe, that, when alterations of 
such magnitude and importance as the present are 
proposed to us, it is natural to inquire whether they 
are warranted by any of the ancient versions : for 
the testimony of no manuscript now extant, nor the 
authority of a single version like that contained in 
the Chigian manuscript, can be allowed to weigh 
against the united authority of the Hebrew text and 
all the other ancient versions, supposing them to 
agree on the point in question. Now the common 
Hebrew text, and all the ancient versions, except 
that of the lxx adduced by Dr. Blayney and sup- 
posed to be contained in the Chigian manuscript, 
ifo agree on the point in question ; for they uni- 
formly 



( m ) 

formly read in the 25th verse seven weeks ana sivtf 
two weeks ; and, though the common Hebrew and 
some of the versions give the number imperfectly 
in the 26th verse reading there only sixty two weeks, 
this manifest omission is supplied by the Arabic and 
the Greek version of Acmila, both of which read 
seven weeks and sixty two weeks as in the 25th 
verse. To this may be added the testimony of 
Africanus and the other ancient expositors, all of 
whom construct their interpretations on the suppo- 
sition that the genuine reading is seven weeks and 
sixty two weeks. Before we adopt Dr. Blayney's 
emendations, which after all, in the form in which 
he exhibits them, occur in no one version and in 
no one manuscript : before, under such circum- 
stances, we adopt Dr. Blayney's emendations in 
direct opposition to a whole cloud of witnesses, we 
may, to say the least, be allowed to hesitate. 

We may further observe, that, in comparing to- 
gether the merits of various readings, it is a good 
rule to adopt that, which seems to be most imperi- 
ously required by the concinnity of the whole pas- 
sage. Now the expression p^HiP D*Jft3# in the 
24th verse is uniformly rendered by ail the ancient 
versions, and by every expositor except Dr. Blay- 
ney, seventy weeks. Afterwards, according to the 
common Hebrew and every ancient version except 
that contained in the Chigian manuscript, we read 

of 



( 173 ) 

nt seven weeks, sixty hvo weeks, and one week. Here 
we may note three circumstances : 1. that the 24th 
verse is apparently a sort of prologue to the whole 
prophecy, in which the largest and therefore proba- 
bly the leading number is given, and after which 
Daniel proceeds to the subdivisions of his subject; 
2. that, when he proceeds to these subdivisions, we 
find three smaller numbers, which jointly make up 
the precise sum of the larger number in the pro- 
logue ; and 3. that one uniform notation of time, 
that by weeks, is used throughout. Let us put these 
circumstances together; and then judge, whether 
there be not strong internal evidence, that the pas- 
sage in which they all meet, as exhibited in the 
common Hebrew and all the ancient versions ex- 
cept that in the Chigian manuscript, contains the 
genuine readings of ail the numbers. But, in Dr. 
Blayney's emendations, we discover no such con- 
cinnity, no such internal evidence of authenticity. 
If ttVIW ETyUJy be translated seventy weeks, as 
I think the subsequent context, in which weeks are 
so frequently mentioned, seems most naturallv to 
require ; it then plainly cannot be applied to the 
Babylonian captivity, and no less plainly cannot 
comprehend the larger numbers which (according 
to Dr. Blayney's emendations) are mentioned sub- 
sequently to it. Nor is this the sole objection: 
instead of trie simplicity of only one mode of com- 
putation, 



( 174 ) 

putaiion, that by weeks, the prophet is made to 
adopt the complexity of a double mode of compu- 
tation, that by weeks and by years. From this 
statement let any unprejudiced critic decide, whether 
the commonly received readings, or those proposed 
by Dr. Blayney, bear upon them the most unequi- 
vocal marks of genuineness. 

Lastly we may observe, that the question is in 
reality reduceable to this : whether we are to cor- 
rect the common Hebrew text by the numbers re- 
cited in the Chigian manuscript, provided we can- 
not satisfactorily account for the appearance of 
such numbers in a Greek translation ; or whether 
we are to retain the numbers recited in the common 
Hebrew text, provided we can satisfactorily ac- 
count for those which appear in the Chigian ma- 
nuscript. To a reader unacquainted with the He- 
brew language it will doubtless seem passing strange, 
that, without some very great corruption in the ori- 
ginal text, any Greek translator could metamor- 
phose seven weeks and sixty and two weeks into se- 
venty and seven times and sixty and two in the 25th 
verse, and into seventy and seven and sixty and two 
years in the 26th verse ; for such are the two Chi j 
gian readings, which form the basis of Dr. Blay- 
ney 's proposed emendations. This however might 
easily have been done by a person who read the 
Hebrew precisely as it now occurs in the 9,5th 
8 verse : 



( 175 ) 

verse : nor is there any occasion to impeach the in- 
tegrity of the present text, in order to account for 
the numbers seventy and seven and sixty and two 
which occur in the Chigian Greek manuscript 

The word tyyUW, written as it is written in the 
prophecy of the seventy weeks without the medial 
servile Van, may signify either weeks or seventy ; 
*nd the word t3'3t# may, in a similar manner, sig- 
nify either years or two. From this ambiguity, 
when the Masoretic points are thrown out of the 
question, I have little doubt that the translation in 
the Chigian manuscript has originated. The fol- 
lowing is the manner in which I account for its ap- 
pearance. 

The passage, that contains the ambiguous 
words £3>¥2t& and ES&SJ stands thus, in our 
common Hebrew bibles, in the 25th verse; 

m^&\ &vfa*%9$t>m mnm j &¥^X and i 

believe, that Daniel wrote it in the same form in 
the 26th verse, though it now occurs there in a 
mutilated and defective shape # , This passage, 
agreeably to all the ancient versions except the 
Chigian, and agreeably to the manner in which it 
was understood by Africanus and other early com- 

* This opinion is confirmed by the^eircumstence of the com- 
plete reading being preserved in the 26th verse, the same as in 
ike 25th, by the Arabic and the Greek of Aqu.ila. 

mentators, 



( 176 ) 

mentators, is rendered in our English version seven 
weeks and threescore and two weeks : yet, if we dis- 
regard the points which are acknowledged to be of 
no authority, we may translate it weeks seven and 
seventy sixty and two. Let us suppose then, that 
the author of the Chilian version thus at first ren- 
dered the passage both in the 25th verse and in the 
26th verse : and we immediately have the very 
mimbers, which now appear in that translation, and 
which are patronized by Dr. Blayney. Let us next 
suppose, that some subsequent copyer, upon turn- 
ing to the original, observed the word Qfttyftj and, 
conceiving it to mean years, added the word years 
after sixty and two in the 26th verse, but neglected 
to add it in the 25th verse : and we then obtain one 
of the substantives of the Chigian version. Let us 
further suppose, that another copyer, whose eye 
happened to glance on times, the last word of the 
25th verse, carelessly substituted it for weeks : and 
we then obtain the other substantive of the Chigian 
version. 

Thus, by a mere mistranslation of the present 
Hebrew text, we may produce the very numbers, 
which appear in the Chigian version, and which 
constitute the foundation of by far the most impor- 
tant part of Dr. Blayney's hypothesis : and thus, by 
supposing two corruptions to have taken place in 
the primary translation, both of which are easily 

accounted 



( if7 ) 

accounted for, we may produce the two most an- 
fives, which now appear in that version, and which 
in his amended readings he has conjecturally dis- 
posed as might best suit his intended explanation* 
Since then he allows (what indeed is sufficiently 
apparent) that the Chigian manuscript has been 
grievously mangled and interpolated, and since his 
favourite readings may be thus easily obtained 
without impeaching the integrity of the common 
Hebrew text, I cannot persuade myself to give up 
that text in favour of what I believe to be a corrupt 
tion of a mistranslation^ 

(Q.) But let us for a moment concede to Dr. 
Blayney all that he could wish ; let us allow his 
emendations to exhibit the genuine autograph of 
Daniel, though they appear not in the precise form 
in which he brings them forward in any one manus- 
cript or version : the propriety of his exposition will 
still remain to be considered. Let us then, 
knowledging for the sake of argument the validity 
of his premises, proceed to discuss the exposition 
founded upon them. 

In order to be able to consider what is usually 
translated seventy weeks retrospectively, Dr. Blay- 
ney renders the original expression sufficient weeks, 
and supposes it to denote the period of the Babylo- 
nian captivity then on the point of expiring. On 
this it may be remarked, that such a mode of speak- 

N ing 



( 173 ) 

ing of a past period is unknown in Scripture, and 
even in the translation sounds most singularly harsh 
and unnatural. It may also be remarked, that, if 
such really be Daniel's meaning, he has chosen the 
most inconvenient phraseology to express it that 
could possibly have been devised. Since the word 
weeks occurs so frequently in connection with the 
numbers specified in the subsequent context, few 
translators would ever imagine, that by the original 
word tD^^W attached to the same word weeks in 
the opening of the prophecy he meant us to under- 
stand, not seventy which is a number, but sufficient 
which is not a number. Indeed to render the word 
in any other manner than by seventy is to charge 
Daniel with labouring to be affectedly obscure, 
when he might with the utmost facility have written 
perspicuously. At the very beginning of the chap- 
ter which contains the prophecy, mention is made 
of the seventy years*. Surely then, if Daniel had 
been here alluding to the seventy years, he would 
have written as he had already done r\W D'JMSSP, 
and not have needlessly perplexed his meaning by 
writing tD*V2t& X^V2^ I the natural and obvious 
translation of which is seventy weeks] and which, to 
make it have any relation to the seventy years, 
must in defiance of the whole subsequent context 



* Dan. ix. 2, 



( 179 ) 

he translated sufficient zveeks. When these matters 
are duly considered, it must, J think, strike every 
person, that Dr. Blayney's version has been adopted 
merely to serve a turn. If the expression be ren- 
dered seventy zveeks , it cannot look retrospectively 
to the seventy years : and, if it do not look retro- 
spectively, it must look prospectively : and, if it 
look prospectively, then it never can be reconciled 
with Dr. Blayney's favourite numbers seventy seven 
weeks and sixty tzvo years* It was necessary there- 
fore to strike out some more flexible translation } 
and that, which has been pitched upon, is weeks 
sufficient. 

But to bring the matter to a point : the following 
arguments appear to me decidedly to prove, that 
the old version is the proper one ; and, conse- 
quently, that the period first mentioned by Daniel 
cannot look retrospectively. 

The expression is rendered in 

all the old versions seventy weeks*: it is understood 

* Of the oriental translations I judge through the medium 
of a Latin version : but I think it only fair to observe, that the 
original phrase which they employ may possibly, from their 
affinity to the Hebrew, be similarly ambiguous ; that is to say^ 
it may be capable of being rendered weeks sufficient as well as 
weeks seventy. I conclude, that the MS. version of the lxx 
does not favour Dr. Blayney's translation of the phrase, as he 
does not adduce it as an authority. 

n % .in 



( ISO ) 

in this manner by all the ancient commentators, 
who frame their expositions accordingly : the Jew^ 
ish writers, however troublesome the prophecy 
which contains it may have been to them in their 
controversies with the Christians, have never thought 
of adopting a different translation : the general con- 
text of the whole prediction imperiously requires, 
that the common version should be retained : and 
the new version, proposed by Dr. Blayney, is at 
once singularly harsh and uncouth, exhibits Daniel 
as affecting unnecessary obscurity, brings out a 
mode of expression which has no parallel in Scrip- 
ture, and is palpably contrived for no other purpose 
than to enable its author to deny the prospective- 
ness of the term in question. But, if the phrase 
EF-JptP EW3 : t$ though capable no doubt (so far 
as the bare letters are concerned) of being rendered 
weeks sufficient, must necessarily for the preceding 
imperious reasons be translated seventy weeks, the 
retrospect iveness of the first clause of the prophecy 
must plainly be untenable : for we shall fruitlessly 
labour to discover any completion of it in the pre- 
cise number of 490 years previous to Daniel's vi- 
sion. It follows therefore by an inevitable conse- 
quence, that, if the first clause do not look retro- 
spectively, it must look prospectively : and so, ac- 
cordingly, it has been generally, and (I think) rightly, 
understood. 

This 



( 181 ) 

This position, if well established, invalidates of 
course the whole of Dr. Blayneys interpretation of 
the first clause. We must conclude from it, that, 
whatever sense "jfiru is capable of, in the present 
instance it has been erroneously translated, in being 
rendered ham been terminated. We must likewise 
conclude from it, that, whatever be the precise idea 
which we ought to affix to the fifth particular the 
sealing of the vision and the prophet, it can have no 
relation to the authentication of Jeremiah's pro- 
phecy of the seventy years desolation of Jerusalem. 
And we must lastly conclude from it, that the sixth 
particular, the anointing of the most holy or the 
anointing of the holy of holies, cannot be applied to 
the sanctifying anew of the temple and sacred uten- 
sils after the return from the Babylonian captivity : 
this, I say, we must at least conclude, whatever 
may be the import of the expression holy of holies ; 
and whether it must denote inanimate objects as 
Dr. Blayney contends, or whether it may denote a 
person, as I am rather inclined to believe. 

Let us however examine the use, which Dr. Blay- 
ney makes of the numbers proposed in his emenda- 
tions. According to the new reading, we are told, 
that, from the going forth of a decree to rebuild 
Jemsalem unto the Messiah the prince, shall be 
seventy and seven weeks and threescore and tw& 
years. Now, if there be any definite meaning ia 

thes§ 



( 182 ) 

these words, they must import, that Messiah should 
come, either naturally or officially, at the end oi the 
term specified ; that is to say, at the end of the 
complete period of seventy seven zveeks and sixty 
two years. What might happen at the end of the 
weeks, or for what purpose a twofold mode of reck- 
oning was adopted and the first term of the weeks 
separated from the second term of the years, does 
not appear : but, that Christ was to come at the 
end of the whole compound period, in some sense 
or other, is asserted in as plain language as can be 
devised. Yet Dr. Blayney maintains, that a two- 
fold coming of Christ is here predicted : his natu* 
rat co?ning, at the end of the seventy seven weeks ; 
his figurative coming to destroy Jerusalem, at the 
end of the additional sixty two years. For such a 
gloss 1 cannot discover the least shadow of autho- 
rity even in the reading which he himself wishes to 
be adopted. It is not said, that there should be 
seventy seven weeks unto the Messiah, and again 
seventy seven weeks and sixty two years unto the 
Messiah, which might have warranted the idea of 
a double coming being intended ; but it is simply 
said, that there should be seventy seven weeks and 
sixty two years unto the Messiah. Hence, from 
this reading, I cannot see that we have a right to 
place any coming of the Messiah at the end of the 
seventy seven zveeks. 

But 



( W ) 

But this is not all. Supposing the reading to be 
genuine, we must at least conclude that something 
remarkable happens precisely at the end of the set 
verity seven weeks, on account of which they are 
divided from the subsequent sixty two years by the 
adoption of a different mode of computation. Now 
Dr. Blayney's wish is to place the first coming of 
our Lord in the flesh at the close of the severity 
seven weeks, and his figurative coming to execute 
judgment on Jerusalem at the close of the addi- 
tional sixty two years. Such being the case, we 
surely have a right to expect perfect accuracy of 
coincidence, before an assent to the hypothesis can 
be reasonably required of us. Yet is Dr. Blayney 
obliged to allow, that, according to his computa- 
tion, the seventy seven weeks expire in the fourth 
year of the vulgar Christian era ; which he reckons 
to be about six or seven years after the birth of 
Christ. According to this arrangement, the birth of 
Christ will indeed fall in ihe^eveiity seventh week * ; 

* Dr. Blayney speaks of the nativity as occurring in the 
third or fourth year before the vulgar Christian era, which 
enables him to include it in the 77th week. But, if it fell out 
at the latter end of the Julian year 4709 or about 4 years be- 
fore that era, where Prideaux places it, it would not fall with- 
in the 77th week, but in the last year of the 76th, because 77 
weeks reckoned from the first year of Cyrus will expire in the 
Julian year 4?' 17. 

2 but 



( 184 ) 

but that is not the point ; the number is seventy 
seven weeks ; and we have no right to consider an 
event, which happens only at the beginning of the 
seventy seventh week, as coming up to the plain 
Import of a numerical prophecy, which by mention- 
ing seventy seven weeks must lead us to expect 
something to happen precisely at the end of those 
weeks. I must therefore, and do, maintain, that 

i the present hypothesis makes the seventy seven 
weeks expire at an era when nothing remarkable 
occurred ; and that the birth of Christ, which fell 
out previous to their expiration, cannot, agreeably 

I to any fair rules of" interpreting a numerical pro- 
phecy, have the least connection with it % 

As 

* Dr. Blayney might, with greater plausibility, have calcu- 
lated seventy, seven weeks from the decree of Cyrus to the birth 
of Christ by estimating the years of those weeks as years con- 
sisting each of only 360 days. The 25th verse, as it stands in 
the present Hebrew text, may be translated, if we disregard at 
once both the points and all the ancient versions, in the fol- 
lowing manner: " Know and understand, that from the going 
" forth of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem unto Messiah the 
" Prince shall be weeks seven and seventy : sixty and two 
H [weeks] it shall be rebuilt, still enlarging itself and becoming 
*' more considerable, even amidst times of distress." Now 
77 weeks contain 539 years : and 539 years of 36'0 days each 
are equal to 531 solar years and 92| days. But the decree of 
the first year of Cyrus was enacted in the Julian year 4178, 
and the birth of our Saviour is commonly placed towards the 

latter 



I 185 ) 

As Dr. Blayney is unable to make the birth of 
Christ coincide with the termination of the seventy 
seven weeks ; so, in order to arrive at the figurative 
coming of our Lord, he is obliged to take the years 
that elapse between the nativity and the real close 
of the severity seven weeks, and to add them to the 
sixty two years : for, between the literal first com- 
ing of Christ and his figurative coming there are 
more than sixty two years. This contrivance is so 
very unnatural and far-fetched, that it appears to 
me to carry the marks of error in the very face of 
it*. 

And, 

latter end of the Julian year 470.9. Consequently, between 
these two events there are something more than 531 solar years; 
that is to say, there are precisely 77 weeks of years of 36*0 days 
each. The coincidence is somewhat curious : but with this 
single coincidence the matter must stop : for, though the num- 
ber seventy might be got rid of by translating the expression in 
the 24th verse sufficient weeks instead of seventy weeks, it will be 
not very easy to shew how 62 weeks or 434 years of 360 days 
each, equal to 427 solar years and 278| days, were the precise 
time employed in the rebuilding of the city. Besides, even to 
the coincidence itself, singular as it may be thought, the mode 
of calculation which produces it may be objected. Ilad it 
, eyer occurred to Dr. Blayney, he would doubtless like myself 
have rejected it on the single score that a computation by 
years of 360 days each is altogether indefensible. 

* Dr. Blayney attempts to defend it against this objection, 
feut in a manner to myself at least not at all satisfactory. 
V A very learned friend/' says he, " who was early made ac- 

" quainted 



( 186 ) 

And, that such is the case, will, I think, be made 
yet further evident by noticing another objection! 
The scheme of Dr. Blayney, instead of exhibiting 
the consistent simplicity of the present Hebrew 
text, makes Daniel adopt a double mode of compu- 
tation, by weeks and by years. Now, if Daniel 

" quainted with the proposal of accounting for the seventy 
u seven weeks and threescore and two years, as stated in the pre- 
" face, was staggered with the objection that arose from trans- 
*' ferring the surplus of years in the seventy seventh week to the 
M following period : an objection, which would equally have 
*' weighed with me perhaps, had the time been computed from 
" the going forth of the decree unto the birth of the Messiah 
<J seventy seven weeks, and from the birth of the Messiah unto 
u his second coming threescore and two years. But the form 
<c of the expression leads us to compute two advents, not the 
" latter from the former, but both alike from the going forth 
of Cyrus's decree : so that, allowing from that decree to the 
"first coming of Christ to be seventy seven weeks, yet it is also 
" said, that from that decree to the second coming should be 
" seventy seven weeks and threescore and two years, that is, ill 
14 all six hundred and one years." The answer to this is ob- 
vious : the scheme requires us to allow that two comings of the 
Messiah are predicted ; one at the end of the seventy seven 
-weeks, and the other at the end of the additional sixty two years. 
But we cannot allow there to be 77 weeks from the going forth 
of the decree of Cyrus to the first coming of Christ, as we are 
here called upon to do; because (Dr. Blayney himself being 
judge) there are not 77 weeks, but only *J6 weeks and about 
] year, or (according to Dr. Prideaux) only weeks 6 years 
and a fraction of another year. 

did 



( 187 ) 

did adopt this double mode, he must have adopted 
it for some good reason : and I know not any that 
can be adduced, except the circumstance of some- 
thing very remarkable occurring precisely at the 
end of 559 years, which happening to amount to 
the exact sum of 77 prophetic weeks might lead 
him to adopt notation by weeks rather than by 
years : and the circumstance of something; else 

J J CD 

equally remarkable occurring precisely at the end 
of 62 additional years, which not being reduceable 
to exact weeks might in the second term lead him 
to adopt notation by years rather than by weeks, 
I know not, I repeat it, any good reason, except 
this, that can be assigned for his departing from the 
simplicity of one uniform mode of notation : for we 
can scarcely suppose that he would have departed 
from it through mere wantonness, But this reason 
will not meet the objection made against Dr. Blar- 
neys hypothesis. Nothing remarkable does occur 
at the end of the seventy seven weeks. Supposing 
therefore that the prophet had meant to direct cur 
attention both to the nativity and the figurative 
coming of Christ, he surely would not have given 
up simplicity of notation for no other cause (as it 
were) than to be purposely inaccurate, when by 
adopting one uniform mode of notation he might 
have expressed himself with perfect accuracy : he 
surely would have said 3 had he meant what Dr. 

Elayney 



( 188 ) 

Blayney ascribes to him, jive hundred and thirty 
and one years and seventy years, not seventy and 
seven weeks and sixty and two years # . The one 
would have been accurate and simple : the other is 
alike deficient in accuracy and simplicity. 

There is an argument of professor Michael is to 
prove, that the numerical readings in the prophecy 
of the seventy weeks must have been originally dif- 
ferent from what they are at present, and that they 
must have been such as to warrant the expectation 
of a coming of the Messiah about the era of the 
destruction of Jerusalem, which, as far as it goes, 
Dr. Blayney notices with approbation, because it 
confirms his opinion that the sixty two additional 
years reach to the figurative coming of Christ in 
judgment: but he thinks, that it does not go far 
enough. The argument is founded on a passage in 
Josephus's history of the Jewish war, in which he 
observes, that, what chiefly animated his country- 
men to take up arms, was an ambiguous oracle 
found in their sacred writings, that about that 
time some one from their country should rule over 
the world. " This," says Josephus, " they under - 
u stood as appropriated to themselves, and many 

* I say this on the supposition that the birth of Christ fell 
out in the Julian year or about four years before the 

common Christian era, 

" of 



( 389 ) 

u of the wise men were mistaken in their judgment 
u concerning it : but what the oracle pointed out 
" was the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was pro- 
<£ claimed emperor in Judea # ." The same obser- 
vation is made likewise by the heathen historians 
Suetonius f and Tacitus J. From these premises 
Michaelis reasons in the following manner. " K 
" That, since the oracle spoken of was one that 
" marked out a certain determinate time, it could 
" be no other than this prophecy of Daniel ; be- 
" cause, though there were others in the sacred 

* To &e znagocv avlaq ycc7\i<f\a> nr^oq rov <7?oXsy,ov f 73 v X^c^oq, 
ttptpifioXoq opoicoq tv roiq hgoiq Ivgvj^zvoq yga.^a,aiv ) uq KATA TON 
KAIPON EKEINON una ryq yj^zctq rig avlvv apfet rvtq om8(j.evviq 9 
Tiflo 01 (ah toq oiy.tiov koc.1 TroAAot ruv crotyuv eTrhemjQqvoiv 

Trsp T'/jv xpiaiv' e$Y)Ks & apex- ttzqi rriv OveaTreca-iccvH ro Xoyiov yiyepovisty, 
CtTrofreixfitvloq £7Tl la^onaq a-JloKpoiTopoq, Lib. vi. C. 5. § 4. Edit. 
Hudson. 

f " Percrebuerat Orienle toto tetits et constans opinio, esse 
" in fatis ? uteo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id 
" de imperatore Romano quantum eventu' postea praedictum. 
" paruit. Judagi ad se trahentes rebellarunt/' Suet, de vit. 
Vespas. cap. iv. 

X " Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis 
il contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, profec- 
" tique Judaea rerum potirentur. Quas ambages Vespasianum 
" ac Titum prcedixerant. Sed vulgus, more humanae cupi- 
€< dinis, sibi tantam fatorum magnitudinem interpretati, ne 
" adversis quidem ad vera mutabantur Tacit. Hist. lib. v* 
c. 13. 

writing* 



( 190 ) 

" writings which foretold of the Messiah, there 
" was none but this that pretended to assign the 
" precise time of his coming. 2. That the oracle, 
" which drew the Jews into rebellion and was so 
" egregiously mistaken by their wise men, was the 
" same which that historian applied to the emperor 
" Vespasian. And therefore 3. That the time, 
" mentioned in the prophecy, must have appeared 
" to coincide with the times of the Jewish war and 
" of Vespasian's exaltation to the imperial dignity, 
" Bat it was impossible (he thinks), that, not the 
" vulgar only, but even the learned among the 
" Jews, and Josephus himself a man eminently 
" skilled in chronology, could have so far miscal- 
" culated the time, as they must have done accord- 
" ing to every supposition, if they had found se- 
" venty weeks only in their sacred copies, as we 
" read at present Of this argument Dr. Blay- 
ney approves ; but observes, that it will extend a 
great deal further than Michaeiis has carried it 
" For it is very certain," he most justly remarks > 
" that the expectations of the coming of the Mes- 
" siah were never stronger nor more universally 
" prevalent among the Jews, than about the time 
" of our Saviour s birth. Hence the numbers of 
" those, who in Jerusalem are said to have waited 

* Blayney's Dissert, ou the seventy weeks, p. 31, 32. 

* at 



( 191 ) 

u at that time for redemption and the consolation of 
" Israel* ; persons far advanced in years too, to 
" one of whom notwithstanding it had been re- 
" vealed by the Holy Ghost that he should not see 
" death until he had seen the Lord's Christ f. 
" Hence also the jealousy of Herod, lest this great 
" person should supplant him in his kingdom ; and 
" hence his bloody attempt to cut him off in his 
" infancy J. Hence the flocking of the multitudes 
(< to John the Baptist §, and their musing in their 
" hearts whether he were the Christ or not \. 
" Nor was it the common people only, whose at- 
" tention was thus attracted towards him their 
" very rulers themselves sent the ministers of reli- 
" gion to inquire into his character, who seemed 
" very much disturbed and perplexed when they 
" heard him declare that he was not the Christ ^]~. 
" When our Saviour himself appeared afterwards, 
" the whole nation almost seemed ready to devote 
" themselves to his service, if he would but have 
" taken upon himself the state and character of a 
" temporal prince and deliverer ; for such they had 
" fondly conceived their Messiah would be. And, 
when they found themselves disappointed in him 



* Luke ii. 25, 3S. 
J Matt. ii. 3, 16. 
|| Luke iii. 15, 



t Luke ii. 26. 
% Matt. iii. 5 — Mark i. 5. 
1T John i. 19—28. 

" who 



( 192 ) 

is who was indeed the real Messiah although his 
" kingdom was not of this world, they were many 
" of them ready to follow 7 the fortunes of impostors, 
" by whom they were frequently betrayed to their 
" ruin*. These early expectations must be sup- 
" posed to have some scriptural foundation like* 
" wise ; for scarce any thing else could have prcn 
" cured them such strong and universal credit" 
From this very just statement, and from the pre- 
ceding argument of Michael is, jointly considered. 
Dr. Elayney draws the following inference in fa- 
vour of his own hypothesis. " The time of our 
" Saviour's birth was at too great a distance from 
" that of which Josephus has spoken (being a dif- 
" ference of not less than seventy years), for to 
" ad|»it a position that the one could possibly 
" be mistaken in calculation for the other. What 
" then? Had this scriptural prophecy fixed on 
" both t iiiies for the Messiah's appearance? It 
" had dom so upon the footing on which I have 
" placed it ; but, I think, after no other plan or 
" mode of interpretation whatever. " 

I must confess, that the argument of Michaelis 
seems to me to be very insecure ground to alter a 
recei ved text of Scripture upon. 

* Acts v. 36, 37- xxi. 38— Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 7. § 6, 
10— De bello Jud. lib. ii. c. 13. § 4, 5. Edit, Hudson. 

Allowing 



( 193 ) 

Allowing that Josephus alludes to the prophecy 
of the seventy zveeks, we shall find it no difficult 
matter to account for the opinion that prevailed 
during the Jewish war respecting the speedy mani- 
festation of the Messiah without being obliged to 
correct any of Daniel's numbers — Four different \ 
edicts having been issued by the kings of Persia, 
or at least three and a verbal permission, the Jews, \ 
before the event, would obviousiy be uncertain from 
which of them they ought to compute the times of 
the Messiah. Without being able perhaps to un- 
derstand the precise reason why seventy weeks w r ere 
specified, they would at least be sure, that unto 
Messiah the prince there should be seven weeks and 
threescore and tzvo zveeks. The expression unto 
the Messiah they would naturally suppose to mean 
unto the coming of the Messiah : hence, whatever 
might be their opinions respecting his birth and 
origin, they would look out for some manifestation 
of him at the end of sixty nine weeks or 483 years 
— Since they knew T not a priori whether the edict t 
of Cyrus might not be the edict intended by Da- 
niel, they would obviously be upon the tiptoe of 
expectation, as 483 years, reckoned from the first 
year of Cyrus or the year A. C. 536, began to draw 
towards a close. These years would expire in the 
year 53 before the vulgar Christian era, or about } 
49 years before the birth of Christ : and precisely 

Q about 



( 194 ) 

about this time the Jews began to look out for the 
coming of Messiah the prince. This is manifest 
from the testimony of St. Luke ; who gives us rea- 
son to believe, that, among the many who had been 
looking for redemption in Jerusalem at the era of 
the nativity, Anna the prophetess had been daily 
attending in the temple in expectation of her Lord's 
appearance at least fifty or sixty years, if not eighty 
four # . The year A. (J. 53 however passed by, and 

the 

* Luke ii. 36, 27, 38. There is an ambiguity in the lan- 
guage of St. Luke, so that it may be doubtful whether Anna 
was eighty four years of age, or bad been a widow eighty four 
years. Supposing however the former, since she lived with 
her husband only seven years, she must have been attending 
the temple in expectation of the Messiah most probably at 
least fifty years. Dr. Prideaux thinks, that she had been look- 
ing out for his appearance full eighty years, and gives much 
the same reason for it that I have done, though not quite in 
such definite terms. " For several years before the birth of 
" Christ, not only Simeon and Anna the prophetess, but the 
" whole nation of the Jews, were in earnest expectation of his 
" coming and of the redemption of Israel by him — The pro- 
" phecies of Daniel and other prophets of the old Testament 
*' having not only spoken of the righteousness, glory, and 
#< bliss, of the kingdom of the Messiah, but determined his 
" appearance to the very time when it happened, gave just 
" reason for this expectation; and, for above eighty years be- 
44 fore Christ's birth, the whole house of Israel were big here- 
44 of. For so long Anna the prophetess being actuated by it 
*' had attended at the temple in fasting and prayer to wait his 

** appearance. 



C 195 ) 

the Messiah was not manifested. They would 
therefore be convinced, that the edict of Cyrus was 
not intended — The next was that of Darius, about \ 
the year A. C. 519; from which, if they reckoned 
again 483 years, they would be brought to the year 
A. C. 36. Still there is no appearance of the Mes- 
siah. But their faith does not fail : they are still 
looking, which plainly denotes a long continued act, 
for redemption in Jerusalem — At length the Saviour 
is born before the expiration of 483 years reckoned 
from the third edict, that of the seventh year of Ar- 1 
taxerxes. Simeon, Anna, and the pious expectants, 
received him with joy; and would then be con- 
vinced, that unto the Messiah did not mean unto 
his natural coming in the flesh, but unto his official* 
coming in the character of the great prophet of the 
Most High. Satisfied however as believers might 
be, the unbelieving Jews would continue to look 
out for the appearance of the Messiah as still fu- 

" appearance. And therefore for so long a time these prophe- 
" cies, and the received interpretations of them, being much 
" talked of throughout all Judea with a view to the speedy 
" completion of them, especially after Pompey had subjected 
" that country to the Roman yoke, from thence the same 
" manner of discoursing of them, and the same expectations 
" of their being speedily accomplished, became diffused to all 
" the Jews of the dispersions, wherever they were, all the 
" world over." Connect. Part ii. b. ix. p. 677, 678. 



ture ; 



( 196 ) 

lure : and they now would have their eyes fixed 
upon the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes in 
the year A. C. 458. Time rolls on; and the fatal 

1 483 years again expire. Precisely at their expira- 
tion John the Baptist makes his appearance, and 
announces the coming of the Christ. How greatly 
the minds of all were affected by this circumstance, 
is sufficiently evident from the narratives of the 
evangelists ; and how, notwithstanding the remark- 
able coincidence, the bulk of the nation obstinately 
refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, is 
abundantly well known — As it appears to me, they 
could only have withheld this acknowledgment, 
consistently with their own principles, on the ground, 
that Jesus might be an impostor who availed him- 

( self of the termination of the 483 years 'reckoned 
from the seventh year of Artaxerxes ; whereas they 
ought in truth to be reckoned from his twentieth 
year, and therefore had not as yet expired. And 
in favour of this opinion they might have adduced 
some very plausible reasoning, as Bp. Lloyd, Mr. 
Marshall, Mr. Butt, and others, have shewn. Time 
again rolls on : Jesus is rejected and ignominiously 
crucified : the 483 years once more expire in the 
year 39 of the Christian era. From this time to 
$he commencement of the Jewish war, false pro- 
phets and false Messiahs were continually starting 
up agreeably to the prophecy of our Lord. 

But 



( 197 ) 

But here the argument of Michaelis begins to 
press ; and it may be asked, How could the Jews, 
consistently with their own principles, expect, from 
the present numbers in the prophecy of the seventy 
weeks, any manifestation of the Messiah after the 
year 39, when reckoning even from the last edict, if 
the permission in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes 
can be called an edict, the 483 years had expired? 
Yet, precisely about the time that the Jewish war 
broke out, indeed somewhat before that time (for, 
according to Josephus, it was the cause of the war's 
breaking out), the expectation of some great prince, 
who issuing forth from Judea should conquer the 
whole world, was peculiarly rife. 

To this it might be sufficient to answer, that the 
prejudices of some are so inveterate and deep- 
rooted as to bid defiance even to an arithmetical 
calculation. The Jews might still continue to hope 
even against hope ; and might justify their expec- 
tations by charging the prophecy itself with dark- 
ness and ambiguity, as they clearly did, if we sup- 
pose the ambiguous oracle # alluded to by Josephus 
to be the prophecy of the seventy weeks — But I 
think a more definite reply may easily be given ; I 
think it may be shewn, why immediately before the 
breaking out of the Jewish war they might be in 



I 



full 



( 193 ) 

full expectation of the speedy appearance of the 
Messiah, deducing this very expectation from the 
numbers exactly as they stand at present, That 
the Jews were not the most accurate chronologers, 
the frequent and gross blunders of their great histo- 
rian Joseph us respecting the kings of Persia suffi- 
ciently testify. Let us suppose then, that, after 
the expiration of the year 39, when the 483 years 
reckoned from the 20th year of Artaxerxes termi- 
nated, the Jews, stili disappointed in their expecta- 
tion of the Messiah, begin to doubt, whether they 
have calculated them from the right era. The Da- 
rius, they might say, who enacted the second decree \ 
was not Darius Hysiaspis, as we have hithertq. 
erroneously supposed, but Darius Nothus; it is 
from the third year of this Darius, that we must 
reckon the 483 years. In such a supposition I 
see nothing very improbable, since this error, gross 
as it doubtless is, has been sanctioned by names of 
no less respectability than those of Scaliger ancl 
Mede. Now the third year of Darius Nothus 
synchronizes with the year A. C. 421: conse- 
quently, if from this year we reckon 483 years, we 
shall be brought to the year 63 of the vulgar Chris- 
tian era. But this was the precise time, about 
which, according to Josephus, Suetonius, and Ta- 
citus, the Jews were in full expectation of the great 
prince who was to acquire the sovereignty of the 

world ; 



( m ) 

wofld : for, three years afterwards, in the May of 
the year 66, the spirit of resistance to the Romans 
broke out; and, early in the following year, the 
war, which is said to have been occasioned bv this 
expectation, commenced in good earnest. 

Thus it is manifest, even if we fully allow his 
premises, how inconclusive the argument of Mi- 
chaelis is, and how little it tends to support the 
opinion that the numbers in the prophecy of the ae- 
cent i) weeks, as they stand in our common Hebrew 
bibles, are not genuine readings. 

But I see not why we are bound to allow his pre- 
mises. Whatever degree of probability there may 
be in the supposition that the x^*P°s *pp&o*os of 
Josephus is the prophecy of the seventy weeks, I 
think it far from certain that such is the case. The 
oracle alluded to by the historian is said to contain 
a prediction that out of Judea should come an uni- 
versal monarch: nothing of the kind is mentioned 
in the prophecy of the seventy zveelcs: the corres- 
pondence therefore between them fails in the most 
material point. Hence we must look out for some 
other oracle which contains the prediction in ques- 
tion, if we wish to discover the prophecy intended 
by Josephus. Now exactly such a prediction seems 
to be contained in the prophecy delivered by Jacob 
respecting Shiloh. " The sceptre shall not depart 
" from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his 

" feet, 



( 200 ) 

" feet, until Shiioh come : and unto him shall be 
" the gathering of the peoples. Binding his fole 
" unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice 
" vine, he washes his garments in wine, and his 
" clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall 
" be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk*." 
Without entering upon a regular discussion of the 
import of this prophecy, it is easy enough to see 
what expectations the Jews might derive from it. 
A great conqueror is here predicted : and it might 
easily be supposed, that the acquisition of universal 
sovereignty was ascribed to him in the words unto 
him shall he the gathering of the peoples. He is 
immediately connected with the tribe of Judah: 
and it is declared, that the sceptre should not de- 
part from that tribe until he should come. Upon 
this the Jews might naturally argue, as follows. 
The Romans have long been encroaching upon our 
independence, hut they have not yet quite deprived 
us of our sceptre : nevertheless, their very en- 
croachments shew, that the time of Shiioh must be 
at hand. Let us arise, and resist them. We shall 
he certain of success : for the sceptre is fated not 
to depart from Judah until Shiioh come ; and as 
yet Shiioh is not come. Whenever he does ceme, 
our sceptre is destined to be resigned to him, not 

* Gen. xlix. 10, 11, 12. 

to 



( 20 i ) 

to the Romans : for unto him shall the gathering 
of the peoples be. The Romans are flow preparing 
to wrest it from us: therefore the great con- 
queror must he on the point of coming to vindicate 
his own cause, to claim the sceptre due to him 
alone, to tread the winepress in his fury, to wash 
his garments in the blood of his enemies, to exalt 
his chosen people to be the first among the nations. 
I pretend not positively to say, that the ambiguous 
oracle of Josephus is the prophecy respecting Shi ■ 
loh : I only argue, that even the premises of Mi- 
chaelis are by no means undeniably established. 
But, granting that the historian did allude to the 
prophecy of the seventy weeks *, I have shewn, that 
no conclusion against the integrity of the present 
numerical readings can be drawn from the expec- 
tation of the speedy appearing of the Messiah that 
prevailed immediately before the breaking out of 
the Jewish war. 

On these grounds I think the inference of Dr. 
Blayney, that the genuine prophecy of the seventy 
weeks authorized the expectation of a two-fold com- 

* Whether he alluded to the prophecy of the seventy weeks 
or not, this, I think, is at least clear, that the expectation of 
the Messiah, which prevailed before and at the birth of Christ, 
and which likewise prevailed when John the Baptist began to 
preach, must have been built upon some attempts to calculate 
the numbers in this famous prediction. 

ing 



( 202 ) 

ing of the Messiah, and that on this account the 
Jews particularly expected his corning at two dif- 
ferent times, to be altogether unwarrantable. And 
I moreover think, that he has neither established 
the readings which he would substitute for the pre- 
sent readings, nor has given a satisfactory interpre- 
tation of the prophecy even according to his own 
emendations. 

% Mr. Lancaster, like Dr. Blayney, conceives 
the edict of Cyrus to be the edict intended by Da- 
niel ; and therefore maintains, that the seventy weeks 
ought to be computed from the era of its going forth* 
His scheme however is so singular a one, and is re- 
plete with such strange difficulties, that few persons 
seem to have been inclined to adopt it. 

He assumes as a principle, that the seventy weeks 
are to be estimated in the same manner as the Jews 
calculated their weeks of years. But every seventh 
year of each week was a sabbatical year, and every 
fiftieth year was the year of jubilee; after the expi- 
ration of which, he supposes that a new series of 
seven weeks began. This being the case, seventy 
such weeks would comprehend 420 working years, , 
70 sabbatical years, and 10 jubilee years; amount- 
ing in the whole to 500 years, which he conceives 
to be the true length of the seventy weeks. 

The seventy years. of the Babylonian captivity he 
necessarily allows to have expired in the first year 

of 



( 203 ) 

£>f Cyrus # ; but he maintains, that they likewise 
expired with the capture of Babylon. For this pur- 
pose, he insists upon it, that the scriptural first year 
of Cyrus coincides with the scriptural first year of 
Darius the Mede ; the first year of both those 
princes alike commencing from the capture of Ba- 
bylon. But Babylon was taken in the year of the 
Julian period 4176f- He concludes therefore, 
upon his principles, that the captivity commenced 
in the year 4106 of the same period. Now we are 
told by Jeremiah, that Jerusalem w 7 as finally taken 
by Nebuchadnezzar, and the temple destroyed, in 
the nineteenth year of his reign and in the eleventh 
year of Zedekiah p This Nebuchadnezzar is usu- 
ally supposed to have been Nebuchadnezzar the 
,son, the Nahocolassar of Ptolemy ; but Mr. Lan- 
caster maintains, that he was Nebuchadnezzar the 
father, the Nabopollassar of Ptolemy. The nine- 
teenth year then of the elder Nebuchadnezzar he 
fixes to the year 4106 of the Julian period ; and 
thus obtains 70 years for the Babylonian captivity, 
reckoning it to commence from the final desolation 

* See Ezra i. 1. 

t Mr. Lancaster says this, on the supposition that Babylon 
was taken in the spring of the year A. C. 538 ; in which opi- 
nion he follows Abp. Usher, and I believe him to be right in 
doing so. 

I Jerem. lii. 1, 45, 12. 

of 



( 204 ) 

of the city and temple. Hence he is obliged to 
suppose, that the Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in 
the first chapter of Daniel is a different person from 
the Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in his second chap- 
ter ; the one being the father who destroyed Jeru- 
salem, the other being his son and successor. 

The commandment to rebuild Jerusalem in the 
prophecy of the seventy weeks he asserts to be the 
same as the commandment that came forth at the 
beginning of Daniel's supplications* : whence he 
argues, since the vision was revealed to him in the 
first year of Darius the Mede f, since the first year 
of Darius the Mede was the first year of Cyrus, 
since the edict of Cyrus went forth in his first year, 
and since the commandment is here said to have 
gone forth at the beginning of Daniel's supplica- 
tions, that the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem 
must be the edict of Cyrus. 

Here then the question is, if the seventy weeks 
be reckoned from the first year of Cyrus (even al- 
lowing them to contain 500 years), how they can 
be made to reach to any part of the times of Christ ? 
— Mr. Lancaster answers by first attempting to 
shew, that 570 years reckoned back from his sup- 
posed end of the Babylonian captivity were still ac- 
counted but seventy weeks ; because the Israelites, 



• Dan* ix. 23c 



f Dan. ix, 1. 

having 



( £05 ) 

having neglected to observe 70 sabbatical years, 
were punished by the desolate resting of their land 
during the seventy years of the captivity * : those 
seventy years therefore were reckoned as the sab- 
baths of the seventy preceding weeks, and thus the 
500 years with these 70 years added to them were 
still reputed to be no more than seventy weeks. 
Hence he argues, that, if 570 years before the re- 
storation of the Jews were accounted as only se- 
venty weeks, 570 years after their restoration might 
be accounted as the same. He next shews from 
Maimonides, that the Jews discontinued their com- 
putation by weeks of years during the whole time of 
the Babylonian captivity, and that they did not re- 
sume it until the year that Ezra went up to Jeru- 
salem, that is to say until the seventh year of Ar- 
taxerxes. This year he throws back more than 
five years ; and places it in the year 4£50 of the 
Julian period, instead of the year 4£56\ By such 
a process he extends the reign of Artaxerxes from 
41 years, as it is laid down in the canon of Pto- 
lemy, to something more than 46 ; throws back the 
whole reign of Xerxes more than 5 years ; and, to 
bring matters even again, shortens the reign of Da- 
rius Hystaspis from 36 years to not quite 31 years. 
Having thus fixed the year in which Ezra went up i 

* 2 Chron, xxxvi. %\. 

to 



( 206 ) 

to Jerusalem to the year 4250 of the Julian period* 
he reckons from it 500 years, the supposed amount 
in the first instance of the seventy weeks, and is 
brought to the year 4750 of the same period, which 
falls out about three years and a half after the cru- 
cifixion. But, between the Julian year 4250 which 
he maintains to be the seventh year of Artaxerxes 
and the Julian year 4177 in which he maintains the 
Babylonian captivity to have expired, there are 73 
years. These, added to the 500 years, produce 
573 years : and these 573 years, which in a round 
sum he is willing to consider as only 570 years, he 
asserts to be equal to no more than seventy weeks, 
as he had previously attempted to shew that the 
570 years before the restoration from Babylon were 
similarly equal to no more than seventy weeks. 
Thus he obtains what he conceives to be Daniel's 
great number of seventy weeks, which includes all 
the smaller numbers. 

The separation of the seven weeks from the sixty 
two weeks, and therefore from the sivty three if the 
last zveek be added to the sixty txvo xveeks, he ac- 
counts for in the following manner. The seventy 
years of the Babylonian captivity he supposes, as 
we have just seen, to be the seventy sabbatical 
years, which the children of Israel had neglected 
to observe, and which their land was therefore then* 
suffered to enjoy in its desolation. Of these sab- 
g batical 



( 207 ) 

batrcal years, he attempts to shew from a numerical 
prophecy of Ezekiel # , that the whole house of Is- 
rael neglected to observe 63 years ; and the house 
of Judah, after the captivity of the ten tribes, 7 
years. In allusion to this circumstance, and for no 
other reason, he conceives the seventy weeks to have 
been similarly divided. 

As for the last week of the seventy, he supposes 
it to commence with the baptism of our Lord by 
John, very soon after the Baptist began his ministry 
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and to terminate 
with the baptism of the centurion Cornelius and his 
family the first fruits of the Gentiles. But, since 
the sixty nine weeks expired with the baptism of 
our Lord, and since he was crucified three years 
and a half after his baptism, he was cut off after 
the sixty two weeks added to the seven weeks, and 
before the seventieth week had expired. In this 
manner therefore, by his one great sacrifice of him- 
self, did he spiritually abolish the Levitical sacri- 
fices in the middle of the last week ; and thus, dur- 
ing one week, did he make firm a covenant with 
many, namely with many of the converted Jews, 
previous to the preaching of the Gospel to the 
Gentiles. 

The latter part of the prophecy he of course 
* Ezek. ir. 4, 5, 6, 

refer* 



( 208 ) 

refers to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Ro- 
mans # . 

( 1 ) This hypothesis was by the author in his day 
defended with no small degree of pertinacity : yet, 
objectionable as it may appear, Mr. Lancaster 
seems to have been a man of so much sound learn- 
ing, that it ought not to be passed over altogether 
in silence. 

It is not improbable, that the computation by 
weeks in this prophecy was adopted in allusion to 
the Levitical weeks of years, which the Jews were 
commanded to keep by sabbatical years and by ju- 
bilees : yet there does not seem to be any thing in 
the prophecy to warrant the assumption, that these 
weeks must necessarily be computed as Mr. Lan- 
caster supposes the Levitical weeks of years to have 
been f. It is dangerous to lay the very foundation 
of an hypothesis on a matter which is itself dis- 
puted. Different opinions have been entertained 

* Chronological Essay on the seventy weeks. 

■f Though Dr. Prideaux argues, that the years of the seventy 
weeks must be solar years because the years of the Levitical 
weeks were evidently such, he roundly denies them to have 
any other connection. " The prophecy," says he, " means 
" no more, than by the seventy weeks to express 70 times 7 
" years, that is 4$0 in the whole, without any relation had 
** either to Shemittahs or sabbatical years," Preface to Con- 
nection. 

respecting 



( 209 ) 

Respecting the precept that enjoins the observation 
of the jubilee. Some maintain, that it was observed 
in the fiftieth year agreeably to the express words 
of Moses # ; and that, when fifty years had expired, 
another series of seven peeks commenced, termi- 
nating in a similar manner with another jubilee in 
the fiftieth year. This opinion, which would make 
seventy such weeks equivalent to 500 years, is fol- 
lowed by Mr. Lancaster. Others maintain, that 
the fiftieth year of the jubilee must coincide with 
the forty ninth year or the seventh sabbatical year ; 
and urge in favour of their supposition, that, since 
Moses declares seven weeks to be no more than 
forty nine years f , since by interposing a fiftieth 
year the series of regular weeks as corresponding 
with weeks of days is completely broken, and since 
intolerable inconvenience would result from the 
land remaining untilled during two successive years, 
the jubilee must have been observed in the forty 
ninth year which is called the jiftieth only from its 
being twice mentioned. This opinion, which would 
make seventy such weeks equivalent to 490 years, 
is followed (not to notice other names) by Abp, 
Usher. The question then is, which of these two 
opinions is the right one. I certainly incline to 
assent to the latter, though I think the mode of 

* Levit. xxv. 10, IU f Levit. xxv. 8. 

P stating 



( 210 ) 

Stating it to be not a little objectionable. We are 
so expressly told, that the jubilee was observed in 
the fiftieth year, that it is difficult to conceive how 
it could ever have been celebrated in the forty ninth: 
yet, if it were observed in an interposed fiftieth year, 
it is manifest, both that the series of regular weeks 
would be broken, and that seven weeks would con* 
tain fifty years, whereas Moses assures us that they 
contained no more than forty nine. The truth of 
the matter therefore I take to be, that the jubilee 
was observed indeed in the fiftieth year; but that 
this jubilee year was reckoned also as the first year 
of the new series of seven weeks. Such a supposi- 
tion appears to me to be the only one that can sa- 
tisfactorily reconcile Moses with himself : for it at 
once makes each jubilee be punctually observed in 
the fiftieth year, and yet ascribes no more than 
forty nine precise years to seven weeks. But, how- 
ever this may be, since Maimonides tells us, that, 
after the return from the captivity, the Jews only 
observed the sabbatical years, and not the jubilees*; 
and since the same may be collected from Josephus, 
who informs us that Alexander remitted to the Jews 
their tribute eyery seventh year on account of its 
being sabbatical f : we may apparently infer, that^ 

* Calmet's I>rct. /Vox Jubike — Preface to Prideauxs Con.' 
section. 

f Joseph, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. cap. 8, § 5; 



( 211 ) 

in whatever manner the jubilee might have been 
previously kept, seventy Levitical weeks subsequent 
to the time of Ezra, when the observation of the ju- 
bilee was discontinued, could have amounted to no 
more than 490 years. Thus does Mr* Lancaster's 
system halt at its very commencement. 

(2.) His arrangement of the seventy years of the 
Babylonian captivity is no less objectionable. The 
whole context of the book of Daniel shews it to be 
impossible that the scriptural first year of Cyrus 
should be the same as the scriptural first year of 
Darius the Mede. Such a supposition both makes 
the prophet use two different modes of reckoning, 
thereby introducing the most wanton and needless 
confusion ; and makes him employ language alto- 
gether inexplicable and unaccountable. Wfien he 
says, This Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, 
and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian^ two succes- 
sive reigns must plainly be meant. Had he design- 
ed, that we should understand him as speaking of a 
joint reign, he would obviously have said, in the 
reign of Darius and Cyrus; as we say, in the reign 
of William and Mary, not in the reign of Mary and 
in the reign of William the Hollander. Such being 
the case, even if the edict to rebuild Jerusalem 
mentioned in the prophecy be the edict of Cyrus, 
it cannot be the same as the commandment which 
is said to have gone forth at the beginning of Da- 

? % nieFa 



( m ) 

niel's supplications, because those supplications 
were offered up in the first year of Darius, whereas 
the edict was enacted in the first year of Cyrus. 
Hence, with Dr. Blayney and the generality of 
commentators, I think it manifest, that the com- 
mandment means only God's commandment to the 
angel to reveal the vision of Daniel ; and that, as 
a special reward of his faith and piety, it went forth 
ere he had well begun to pray. Such, from the 
context seems to be the natural import of the pas- 
sage . 

But let us concede to Mr. Lancaster, that the 
first year of Cyrus is the same as the first year of 
Darius, and observe the consequences of it — f. 
From this supposed first year of Cyrus he counts 
back seventy years, in order to arrive at the nine- 
teenth year of Ptolemy's Nabopollassar or Nebu* 

* " If it be asked, To what do I suppose the commandment, 
" ver. 23, to refer? I answer, that with the generality of in- 
" terpreters I understand no other by it, than a commission 
M given by God to go and shew Daniel all the following par- 
" ticulars, as a mark of God's special favour: and this I con- 
" ceive to be the most natural import of the words taken to- 
4< gether, At the beginning of thy supplications an order came 
" forth, in pursuance of which I am come to shew thee, because 
" thou art greatly beloved of God ; therefore attend to the order, 
" and consider the vision or revelation: that is, understand by 
" whos.e authority I come, and consider the import of what is now 
6i reveaki to thee." Dr. Blayney's Dissert, p. 2i, 26. 

. chadnezzar 



( m > 

ehadnezzar the father ; and thence maintains, that 
it was in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar the 
father, and not in the nineteenth year of Nebuchad- 
nezzar the son. that Jerusalem and the temple were 
destroyed. Now ; since Nabopollassar reigned 2 1 
years ; since his son reigned two years conjointly 
with him ; since Jerusalem and the temple were 
destroyed in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, and in 
the nineteenth year of some Nebuchadnezzar; and 
since Mr. Lancaster ascribes their destruction, not 
to Ptolemy's Nabocolassar as other chronologers do, 
but to his father Nabopollassar : it is plain, that he 
throws back the eleventh year of Zedekiah and the 
final destruction of Jerusalem by the scriptural Ne- 
buchadnezzar no less than 19 years: for, Nebu- 
chadnezzar the son having reigned two years with 
his father, his nineteenth year according to Jere- 
miah's account coincides with his seventeenth year 
according to Ptolemy's account — 2. Such being the 
case, since the years of all the kings both of Judah 
and Israel are given us in Scripture* since their 
synchronization with the different kings of Assyria 
is likewise marked ; since we know that the reign 
of Tiglath Pileser commenced synchronically with, 
the reign of Nabonassar, because they both began 
to reign upon the overthrow of the first Assyrian 
empire S ; and since this Tiglath Pileser, early in 



* See Usser. Annal. in A. P. J. 396G, $S6f 9 

tte 



( 214 ) 

the reign of Ahaz, assisted him against Eezin and 
Pekah : it will necessarily follow, that to throw back 
the eleventh year of Zedekiah 19 years will render 
it utterly impossible for Tiglath Pileser, whose reign 
commenced in the first year of the era of Nabonas- 
sar, to have been contemporary with Ahaz more 
than about a year, and that year the last of Ahaz, 
For to throw back the eleventh year of Zedekiah 
19 years must proportion ably throw back the reigns 
of all the other kings both of Judah and Israel, 
Consequently the death of Ahaz must be thrown 
back from the beginning of the twenty first year of 
the era of Nabonassar to the beginning of the se- 
cond year of that era ; that is to say, to the begin- 
ning of the second year of Nabonassar at Babylon 
and of Tiglath Pileser at Nineveh. But Ahaz 
reigned about 1 6" years : and Tiglath Pileser assist- 
ed him at the beginning of his reign over Judah, 
and died shortly after his twelfth year *. It is 
plain therefore that a scheme of chronology, which 
makes Ahaz.^fe in the second year, of Tiglath Pile- 
ser, instead of surviving him and being partly con- 
temporary with his son Salmaneser, must be grossly 
erroneous— 3. The incongruity of this system will 
further appear from another circumstance. Zecha* 

* Compare 2 Kings xv. 36, 37, 38 — xvi. 1 — 10. xvii. 1, 2, 3, 
and see Usser. Annai. in A. P. J. 3972 —3987. and the chro* 
nological tables at the end of Prideaux's Connection, 

riah 



( 215 ) 

riah tells us, that in the fourth year of Darius the 
Jews had kept the fasts of the fifth and seventh 
months seventy years % But these fasts, as it is 
well known, were instituted on account of the de- 
struction of the temple and the murder of Gedaliah 
in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. There- 
fore there must be a period of seventy years be- 
tween the nineteenth of that Nebuchadnezzar who 
destroyed the temple, and the fourth of Darius 
Hystaspis. Now there are exactly 70 years be- 
tween the fourth of Darius and the nineteenth of 
Nebuchadnezzar the son or Nabocolassar, inasmuch 
as the nineteenth year of that prince according to 
Jeremiah's reckoning (who computes from the be- 
ginning of his two years joint reign with his father) 
answers to his seventeenth year in the canon of 
Ptolemy; whereas between the fourth of Darius 
and the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar the father 
or Nabopollassar, which (according to Mr. Lan^ 
caster) coincides with the eleventh of Zedekiah, 
there are 89 years f . Hence it is evident, that the 
temple was destroyed in the nineteenth year of Ne- 
buchadnezzar the son, not in the nineteenth of Ne- 
buchadnezzar the fat her J — 4. There is yet another 

matter, 

* Zechar. vii. 1, 5. 

t See the Canon of Ptolemy in the Appendix. 
% Mr. Lancaster indeed would persuade us, that in the 
lourth year of Darius the Jews had not fasted and mourned 

during 



( 216 ) 

matter, which no less decidedly proves the errone- 
ousness of Mr. Lancaster's opinion. The thirty 
seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin expires 
with the commencement of the first year of Evil- 
Merodach # ; and he was led away captive at the 
commencement of the first year of Zedekiah f: 
therefore the eleventh year of Zedekiah must have 
been the eleventh year of his captivity. But the 
first year of Evil-Merodach or Elyarodamus is fixed 
by the canon of Ptolemy to the year 1 87 of the era 
of Nabonassar. This year then commencing (as it 
does) with the close of the thirty seventh of Jehoi- 
achin's captivity, the eleventh year of his captivity, 
and consequently the eleventh year of Zedekiah, 
must have coincided with the year 160 of the same 
era. But this year coincides with the year 4126 of 
the Julian period : and the Julian year 4126 coin- 

during the space of seventy years, but that they had then only 
long fasted and mourned on account of the seventy years, namely 
the seventy years of the captivity. There is no word however 
in the original to correspond with on account of nor will it 
"bear any such unnatural gloss. Mr. Lancaster indeed care- 
fully avoids introducing the expression on account of; and only 
paraphrases the passage when ye fasted and mourned even those 
seventy years, in the same sense as we sometimes speak ellipti- 
cally of a person's mourning his misfortunes: but the sense is 
Still the same. 

* See 2 Kings xxv. 27- and Jerem. lii. 31? 

| See 2 Kings xxiv. 10—1 7. 



( W ) 

rides with Ptolemy's seventeenth year of Naboco- 
iassar or Nebuchadnezzar the son, which is the 
same as the nineteenth year of that prince accord- 
ing to Jeremiah's reckoning. Now the temple was 
destroyed in the eleventh year of Zedekiah : and 
this eleventh year of Zedekiah had been shewn to 
coincide with the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnez- 
zar the son. Therefore it is again evident, that 
Nebuchadnezzar the son, not Nebuchadnezzar the 
father, was the prince who destroyed the temple # 
- — 5. Nor is this all. Mr, Lancaster doubly errs in 
his chronology. I have hitherto spoken of his 
throwing back the eleventh year of Zedekiah nine- 
teen years, because he professes to throw it back 
to the nineteenth year of Nabopollassar ; but in 

* Mr. Lancaster attempts to get rid of this chronological 
difficulty, by conjecturing, that Evil-Merodach was called to 
the throne during the seven years madness of his father, that 
this madness commenced at the close of the 37th year of Je- 
Jioia chin's captivity, and that the first year of Evil-Merodach. 
was the first of his reign during the madness of his father not the 
first of his reign after the death of his father. All this however 
is mere conjecture; for it is not positively known, in -what part 
of the reign ol Nebuchadnezzar his madness ought to be placed, 
nor whether the government were during that time vested iri 
Evil-Merodach. It is conjecture moreover, not only unsup- 
ported, but directly contradicted by Josephus, who asserts that 
the first year of Evil-Merodach, in which he released Jehoi- 
achin, was his first year after the death of his father. Ant. 
Jud. lib, x, cap, 11. § 2, 

reality 



( 218 ) 

reality he throws it back twenty years, because he 
places this nineteenth year of Nabopollassar in the 
year 4106 of the Julian period. His reason for 
such an arrangement is, that he may have exactly 
70 years between his raised eleventh year of Zede- 
kiah and the capture of Babylon in the year 4176 
of the same period. But, as if this scheme were 
doomed to fail in all its parts, the nineteenth year 
of Nabopollassar, according to the canon of Pto- 
lemy, does not coincide with the Julian year 4106, 
but with the Julian year 4107*. 

(3.) Faulty however as his arrangement of the 
seventy years and the first year of Cyrus is, it is not 
so inseparably connected with his arrangement of 
the seventy weeks as necessarily to involve the faults 
ness of that also. I proceed now therefore to dis- 
cuss the latter. 

Maimonides informs us, that the Jews did not 
resume their computation by weeks of years, which 
was discontinued at the commencement of the Ba- 
bylonian captivity, until the year that Ezra went up 
to Jerusalem, that is, until the seventh year of Ar- 
taxerxes. Mr. Lancaster, who contends that the 
seventy weeks of the prophecy exactly coincide with 

* Mr. Lancaster's scheme of raising the eleventh year of Ze- 
«Iekiah twenty year* is confuted very ably and at a considera- 
ble length by Mr. Marshall in his treatise on the seventy 
weeks. 

9 seventy 



( 219 ) 

seventy of these weeks of years, that the actual* 
commencement of the seventy iveeks synchronizes 
with the resumption of the Levitical mode of com- 
putation, and that seventy Levitical weeks are equi- 
valent to 500 years, finds it necessary for his scheme 
to lengthen the reign of Artaxerxes, to curtail the 
reign of Darius Hystaspis, and to throw back the 
whole reign of Xerxes, something more than 5 
years. This curtailment of the reign of Darius is 
made on the authority of Ctesias, who asserts that 
he reigned only 31 years, therein contradicting He- 
rodotus who assigns 36 years to his reign. The 
question therefore is, which of the two writers we 
are to follow. Now it is positively known, that the 
battle of Marathon was fought either in the thirty 
first year of Darius, the year in which Mr. Lancas- 
ter supposes him to die, or in his thirty second year: 
of these the latter opinion, which fixes it to the year 
4224 of the Julian period, seems to be the true one. 
It is also known that it was fought four years before 
the death of Darius, in the tenth year before the 
transit of Xerxes, and exactly ten years before he 
lost the battle of Salamis f . It is lastly known, 

that 

* I say actual, because here he makes them commence after 
the expiration of the 73 additional years. 

t " Parta est celeberrima haec victoria, Boedromionis (tertii 
f* a soistitio sestivo mensis Attici) die 6'to, ut in Camillo referfc 

<£ Plutarchusg 



( mo ) 

that the battle of Salamis was fought in the sixth 
year of Xerxes # . But these different particulars 
cannot all be true according; to Mr. Lancaster's 
proposed chronological arrangement. For, by sup- 
posing that the battle of Marathon was fought in 
the year 4223 of the Julian period and in the thirty 
first year of Darius, and by yet maintaining that 
Darius reigned no more than 31 years, he allows 
no greater interval between the battle of Marathon 
and the battle of Salamis than 6 yejars; and. instead 
of placing the former of these 4 years before the 
death of Darius, he places it in the very year in 
which he died. Thus, even to say nothing of hi§ 
double contradiction of Ptolemy f, I think it evi- 
dent, that his dislocation of chronology in the pre- 
sent instance is no less unwarrantable than in that 

Si Plutarchus; Fhanippo Athenis archonte, lit in Aristide ha- 
bet idem: Ixxii dee videlicet Olympiadis anno 3io, quadri* 
f ennis ante mortem Darii, ut in libro 2do sacra? historian Se- 
*f verus Sulpicius indicat : anno ante Xerxis in Graeciarn trail- 
4t situm IQmo, ut in Imo historic sua? habet Thucydides, et 
" in Corinthiacorum auxiliatorum epitaphio Lysias ; et ante 
4t pugnam Salaminiam, eodem mense Boedromione factam, 
u 10 annis completis, ut apud Platonem libro 3tio de legimus 
" invenimus." Usser. Annal. in A. P.J. 4224. 
* See Usser. Annal. in A. P. J. 4233, 4234. 
f Ptolemy assigns 36' years to Darius, and 41 to Artax- 
erxes: Mr. Lancaster, only 31 years to jQarius, and 46 to 
Artaxerxes, 

which 



( 221 ) 

Which was last considered ; and that the seventh 
year of Artaxerxes ought to be placed in the year 
4256 of the Julian period, where Ptolemy's num- 
bers shew it ought to be placed, not in the year 
4250, where Mr. Lancaster places it *. 

(4.) But, even if he had succeeded better than he 
has done in his chronological arrangements, the 
question would still be, how far we can reasonably 
admit 573 years, the period between his supposed 
first year of Cyrus and the fourth year from the 
crucifixion, to be equal to the prophetic term of se- 
venty weeks. Mr. Lancaster argues, that, as a pe- 
riod of 570 years before the expiration of the Baby- 
lonian captivity was estimated as no more than se- 
venty weeks; so a period of 573 years, which may 
be called in a round number 570 years, may be esti- 
mated after the Babylonian captivity as similarly 
being no more than seventy weeks. It is to be 
feared however, that the very basis of his argument 



* To tnis direct proof it may be added, that the authority 
©f Ctesias, on which Mr. Lancaster builds, has never been held 
in very high repute ; whence it is not reasonable to expect, 
that we should set aside the canon of Ptolemy and the testi- 
mony of Herodotus in his favour. " We find," says Dr. Pri- 
deaux, u but a poor character of him among the ancients 
" (Aristot. Hist. Animal, lib. viii. c. 28 — Plutarch, in Ar- 
«* taxerx.), they generally speaking of him as 3 fabulous writer/' 
Connect. Part i. B. vii. p. 452. 

* is 



( ) 

is by no means well established * : but, if it had 
been established with the most overbearing evi- 
dence, it would not therefore have warranted the 
inference which he has drawn from it. The Israel- 
ites, Mr. Lancaster maintains, during seventy weeks 
before the Babylonian captivity, neglected to ob- 
serve the seventy sabbatical years belonging to those 
weeks. The seventy years therefore of the capti- 
vity, during which the land rested, were reckoned 
in lieu of the neglected seventy sabbatical years : 
and the seventy weeks with the addition of the se- 
venty years of the captivity, amounting in the whole 
to 570 yeaYs, were still estimated as no more than 
seventy wee^s. Now, granting for a moment the 
accuracy of this statement which may very well be 
disputed, I see not what right he has thence to infer, 
that 573 years after the captivity, or 570 years as- 
he wishes to call them in a round number, are simi- 
larly equal to no more than seventy weeks. The 
same cause does not exist for the one reckoning, 
that exists, according to Mr. Lancaster s theory, 
for the other. Whether the Israelites neglected to 
observe the seventy sabbatical years of the same 
number of weeks before the captivity, or not ; they 
certainly, as we have seen above both from Jose- 

* This is so fuffy shewn by Mr. Marshall, that it would be 
superfluous for me here to discuss the matter afresh. 

phus 



< 223 ) 

phus and Maimonides, duly observed the sabbatical 
years after the captivity from the days of Ezra ? 
who revived the ordinance of the Levitical weeks, 
down to the very time of Christ. Hence we plainly 
cannot be warranted in adding 73 years to the 500 
years ; which, according to Mr. Lancaster, elapsed 
between the first year of Artaxerxes and the fourth 
year after the crucifixion, and which he maintains 
to be equal to seventy Levitical weeks when the 
sabbatical years of those weeks are regularly ob- 
served. All the sabbatical years of the seventy 
weeks of the prophecy were, by his own account, 
regularly observed; and seventy Levitical weeks, 
when their sabbatical years are regularly observed, 
are, by his own account also, equal to 500 years. 
Such being the case, the seventy weeks of the pro- 
phecy cannot with any shew of reason be extended 
to 573 years. I may add to this, that, since Mai- 
monides tells us that after the return from the cap- 
tivity the Jews never observed the jubilee years, 
seventy weeks in this case, however the jubilees 
might have been formerly celebrated, could only 
have been equal to 490 years, not to 500 years as 
Mr. Lancaster asserts *. 

* The reader will find the whole hypothesis of Mr. Lancas- 
ter confuted at large by Mr. Marshall in his treatise on the se- 
venty Keeks, To that work I beg to refer him, if he should 
wish to investigate the matter any further. 

(5.) After 



( 224 ) 

(5.) After pointing out the preceding objections 
to Mr. Lancaster's scheme, it may seem almost su- 
perfluous to notice his placing the cutting off of the 
Messiah (if the original be so translated) in thej 
middle of the seventieth zveek, instead of at the end 
of the sixty ninth > which the express language of 
the prophecy necessarily requires *j and his vio- 
lently separating the abolition of the sacrifice from 
the times of the siege of Jerusalem, to which the 
context so plainly binds it. Enough, I trust, has 
been said to shew that it is utterly untenable f. 

Having 

* " And after threescore and two weeks (added to the 
" above-mentioned seven weeks) shall Messiah be cut off# 
Dan. ix. 2o\ 

f Mr. Bennett, a Polish Jew, in a work recently published 
by him under the title of The constancy of Israel, bus brought 
forward a discussion of the prophecy of the seventy weeks ; ia 
which it is difficult to say, whether the chronology, the tran- 
slation of the original, or the application of the prediction, is 
the most extraordinary. 

1. He allows the greater period to mean 4<)0 years: but 
these years he computes from the beginning of Zedekiah's cap* 
tivity to the commencement of the reign of Herod. The seven 
weeks or 49 years he reckons from the same era, and makes 
them terminate with the first year of Cyrus, whom he sup* 
poses to be the anointed prince or (as he thinks proper to trans- 
late the original) the exalted prince. The remaining sixty, three 
weeks are the period of Judah's existence from the restoration 
by Cyrus to the commencement of the reign of Herod ; where- 
of sixty two weeks are his existence in a state of sovereignty, 
and one week his existence in a state of confusion. 

On 



( 225 ) 

Having thus prepared the way by discussing the 
nature of the ancient Jewish year, the chronology 

of 

. On this arrangement it ma) 7 be remarked, that, according to 
the astronomical canon of Ptolemy, the 1 1th year of Zedckiah, 
coinciding with the 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar (which ans- 
wers to his 19th year as Jeremiah reckons the years of his 
reign), must have coincided with A. y£. N. l60 and A. P. J. 
4126: and the first year of Herod, coinciding with Ptolemy's 
loth year of Cleopatra, must have coincided with A. JE. N. 
711 and A. P.J. 4-677- Hence it is manifest, that, instead of 
490 years (as Mr. Bennett informs us), there are no less than 
551 years between his supposed commencement and his sup- 
posed termination of the seventy weeks — So again: the J 1th. 
year of Zedekiah coinciding with A, JE. N. 160 and A. P. J. 
4126, and the scriptural 1st year of Cyrus (his 3d according 
to Ptolemy, who ascribes to Cyrus the two years of Darius) 
coinciding with A. M. N. 212 and A. P. J. 4178, it is plain 
that between these two eras there is a period of 52 years : Mr. 
Bennett teaches us, that there are 49 years only — The unac- 
countable erroneousness of his arrangement of the seventy weeks 
of course involves the erroneousness of the sixty three weeks. 

2. Had the chronology been less exceptionable, it might still 
"be demanded, on what authority are the seventy weeks reckoned 
from the beginning of Zedekiah's, captivity ? I can discover 
nothing but the ipse dixit of Mr. Bennett. As for the pro- 
phecy itself, it tells us to compute the first period of the seventy 
weeks and therefore the seventy weeks themselves, from the going 
forth of an edict to rebuild Jerusalem. This would have im- 
peded Mr. Bennett's progress, had he not discovered that 
*m NYD fo, the literal version of which is from the going 
of a wordy ought to be translated in the conclusion. How such 
a version can be elicited from the Hebrew original, I am at a 

Q " loss 



( > 

of the several edicts of the Persian sovereigns* and 
the most remarkable interpretations that have been 

proposed, 

loss to comprehend* Some of his other versions are little less 
singular. In ver. 26", he translates rPt^D the regency; he had 
previously rendered it exalted; the word, as it frequently oc- 
curs in Scripture, means the anointed one ; not a tiring, but & 
person. In the same verse he translates n*ntfl» shall be subdued* 
and tells us that its root is tm&i He has been led into this* 
error by observing the letter n in tvnttf* and the same letter 
31 in >mnttf (Psalm xxxviii. 6.), whence he imagines that they 
spring from the same root. He ought to have known, that the 
n in >mnu> is a servile and a portion of the pronominal suftlx 
♦n : whereas the n in n»nir> is a radical. The two words, 
which he would make one and the same, are two perfectly dis- 
tinct words and of entirely different meanings. -In the same 
verse he translates r/pl and his grief, instead of and the end 
thereof: but, what idea we are to annex to the whole clause 
and his grief shall he with a food, he docs not inform us. 

3. After what has been said, it is almost superfluous to add 
any thing respecting his application of the prophecy. If the 
Messiah here spoken of mean Cyrus, it may be asked, from 
what text in the whole bible do the Jews derive their practice 
of calling their expected deliverer the Messiah? Wherever the- 
term elsewhere occurs, we are not required by the necessity of 
the place to apply it to the promised Saviour. Their ancestors 
certainly understood the Messiah of Daniel in a very different 
sense from that which Mr. Bennett recommends to us. They 
were in full expectation of their great deliverer both before and 
#fter the ministry of Jesus. Why should they have expected 
him about that precise time, if they had not computed the seventy 
weeks from one or other of the Persian edicts ? But, if their 
expectation was built on such a computation, then they must 

fea ve 



( §27 ) 

proposed, I may now proceed to an examination of 
the prophecy itself. 

have looked for their Messiah in the Messiah of Daniel. Mr, 
Bennett not only contradicts the sense of the ancient Jews^ but 
likewise of many of the Jewish commentators. Barnahaman, 
Moses Gerundensis, the Talmudists, the Rabbins, the Hebrews 
of Jerome's time, all understood this prophecy as relating to 
the expected Messiah — He makes both the sixty nine weeks and 
the seventy weeks end with the beginning of Herod's reign, and 
says, that they alike expired when Judea was made a Roman 
province. Both these periods could not expire at the same 
time: and, as for Judea, it was not made a Roman province 
until after the 10th year of Archelaus, that is to say, full 44 
years after the beginning of Herod's reign — How the one week 
applies to any part of Herod's reign, Mr. Bennett does not 
think proper to inform us : he satisfies himself at least with 
telling us, in general terms, that from the sixty second week 
Judea will be in a state of confusion as it is explained in the 
26th and 27th verses. 

More might be said : but I am weary of the subject. This 
work certainly would not have been noticed by me, had it not 
shewn in a strong light the wretched shifts to which the Jew* 
#re obliged to have recourse. 



CHAPTER 



( ms ) 



CHAPTER IV. 



Concerning the proper translation of the prophecy* 

Before any attempt can be made to explain 
the prophecy of the seventy weeks, it will be neces- 
sary to inquire into the proper mode of translating 
it. 

The prediction itself, I conceive, ought to be read 
find translated in the following manner. 



Dan. IX, 



Ver. 24. 

onnVi jwan nbzb bvi 
pn* K»anVt py na^i ni«ton 
riwxb\ pin onnh d»bV# 
: o»ttnp i»np 



Ver. 24. 
Weeks seventy are the pre- 
cise period upon thy peopf« 
and upon thy holy city, to 
complete the apostasy, and t© 
perfect the sin-offerings, and 
to make atonement for iniqui- 
ty, and to cause him who is the 
righteousness of the eternal 
ages to come, and to seal the 
vision and the prophet, and t$ 
anoint the Most Holy. One. 

Ver. 



( 229 ) 

Ver. 25. Ver. 25. 

nwrrV *m KYD |D Vawm )nni But know and understand, 
TJIJ JTttfn aVtsnV rnnVl from the going forth of an 
a*ttfttf S'Plt^T ntflttf CD^lttf edict to rebuild Jerusalem un- 
flUTi mm nmrui mtim o>lttrt to the Anointed One the Prince 
: Q'rum pivai shall be weeks seven and weeks 
sixty and two : it shall be re- 
built, with perpetual increase 
iind firm decision, even in the 
short space of the times. 

Ver. 26. Ver. 26. 

Q»yit^ni n^iiy CTntrnnnNi And, after the weeks seven 
ptfl rvtyD nutm cdwu? and the weeks sixty and two, 
Jttnpm T#m tne Anointed One shall cut off 
by divorce, so that they shall 
be no more his, both the city 
and the sanctuary, 
tvpl Kin Otf n*rw* For the people of the Prince 

rnnJ nan^D j>p in *|tatra that shall come shall act cor- 
; mDDitf ruptly : but the end thereof 
shall be with a flood ; and un- 
to the end of a war firmly de- 
cided upon shall be desolations. 
Ver. 27. Ver. 27. 

yfcW 0>1TV nm Vn:tm Yet he shall make firm a co- 

: *in« venant with many for one week, 
nmni niT n*31tf ' jnnttfn »ym And in half a week he shall 
flVa *un C3»ty£ yip'ttf *]J3 ^Jtt cause the sacrifice and meat- 
• ; DOW bjj *]nn nnui offering to cease (for upon the 
border shall be the abomina- 
tion that makcth desolate), 
even until an utter end, and 
that firmly decided upon, shall 
lie poured upon the desolator* 

I. In 



( 230 ) 

1 . . 

I. In this arrangement of the original prediction, 
only four readings, different from those which stand 
in our common Hebrew Bibles, have been adopted ; 
and for every one of these the most ample authority 
may be produced. 

1 . For tfbjb in the 24th verse to restrain, I read 
nb^b to finish in the sense of completing, consider- 
ing it as used irregularly instead of mb^b. I am 
supported by thirty or forty manuscripts, the old 
versions, our present English translation, and the 
Polyglotts and Hexaplars. 

2. For tDDnbl ill the same verse and to seal, I 
read Dnn^l and to perfect. This is the reading 
of the Keri, and of a great number of manuscripts : 
and it is followed by the Vulgate, the Syriac, and 
our English version, though they understand it in 
the sense of making an end of; which, if taken spi- 
ritually, will in effect be the same sense as that 
which I ascribe to it. 

3. For after weeks sixty and two in the 26th 
verse, I read after weeks seven and weeks sixty and 
two. This is one of the very few instances, in 
which even a conjectural emendation might have 
been allowable, because it is plainly required by the 
context : for, if there were to be seven weeks and 
sixty two weeks unto the Messiah, as we are told 
in the preceding verse, he plainly could neither act 
nor suffer , whether the word rHD* be translated 

actively 



( 231 ) 

actively or passively, at least in his official charac- 
ter, before the expiration of sixty nine weeks. Ac- 
cordingly, most commentators have supposed the 
sixty two iceeks, mentioned unconnectedly in the 
26th verse, to be sixty tzvo weeks after seven weeks. 
But happily we have no occasion to resort to con- 
jecture : the complete reading of the 26th verse, 
perfectly according with that of the 25th, has been 
preserved in the Greek version of Aquila and in the 
Arabic; the first of which reads after the seven 
weeks and sixty and two % and the second some- 
what more fully after the seven weeks and the sixty 
and two weeks 

4. For D^pCP abominations in the 27th verse, 
the royal Parisian manuscript reads singularly *pp*5P 
the abomination. The word is likewise given sin- 
gularly in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and 
the Greek of Theodotion J. To which may be 
added, what seems sufficiently to decide the genuine- 
ness of the reading, that our Lord, according both 
to Matthew and Mark, cites it singularly §. 

On such authorities, the proposed readings may, 
I think, be safely adopted. 

+ " Post septem hebdomades et sexaginta duas hebda? 
*' mades." 

X The version that generally bears the name of the lxx. 
| Matt. xxiv. 15— Mark xiii. 14. 

IT. The 



( 232 ) 

II. The variations from our common English 
version, which occur in the present translation of 
the prophecy, shall next be examined. 

1 . I consider the word inn J, in the 24th verse, 
as a participial noun. Although the root *"|nn 
occurs only once in the whole Bible, there seems 
little reason to doubt that its primitive meaning is 
to cut. Now I have already shewn, that the pe- 
riod, mentioned in the 24th verse, must be under- 
stood to look prospectively, and not, as Dr. Blay- 
ney supposes, retrospectively. Such being the ease, 
the import of "jnnj cannot be cutting off, in the 
sense of terminating. Since the period connected 
with it looks prospectively, the most natural and 
obvious idea that can be affixed to it is that of pre- 
cision and definiteness. Every limited period is cut 
out from the lapse of time in general ■ and thus, in- 
stead of being unlimited, it becomes fixed and pre- 
cise. This sense of the word has been adopted by 
two of the Hexaplar versions ; one of which renders 
it ifoKipoiirQvHrav have been approved or estimated, 
and another mpAwav have been decreed. It has also 
been adopted by our common English translation 
and Mr. Wintle. And I am inclined to think, that 
the <rvvsT[wfairav of Theodotion, though it probably 
was the prototype of the Vulgate abbreviates sunt % 
designed to convey much the same meaning, 

that 



( 233 ) 

that of cutting out together the whole specified pe- 
riod from time in general*. 

2. I render H^D 1 ? te complete, that is to say, to 
finish a matter in the sense of completing it. The- 

* Mr. Godwin translates it cut out, and assigns as a reason 
because they numbered by cutting notches. I can more easily ad- 
mit the propriety of his version, than of the reason on which it 
is founded. 

Mr. Mede, who like myself thinks that the whole prophecy 
of the seventy weeks will not be finally accomplished until the 
expiration of Daniel's three times and a half, understands the 
word much in the same manner that I do. " The word *]nnJ, 
" here translated determined or allotted, signifies properly to be 
** cut, or cut out, and so may seem to imply such a sense as if 
" the angel had said to Daniel, Howsoever your bondage and 
" captivity under the Gentiles shall not altogether cease, until 
" that succession of kingdoms which I before shewed thee be 
ft cjyite finished ; yet shall God, for the accomplishing his pro- 
M mise concerning the Messiah, as it were cut out of that long 
u term a certain limited time, during which the captivity of 
" Judah and Jerusalem being interrupted, the holy city and 
" commonwealth in some measure shall again be restored, and 
" so continue till seventy weeks of years be finished." Works, 
b. iii. p. 6£7. 

Professor Michaelis constructs and understands the word al- 
most exactly in the same manner as myself. " Gra'mmatico 
" tamen forte pra?placuerit, ad vitandam anomaliam verbi 
ft singularis cum septuaginta hebdomades constructi, puncta 
f* mutare, H.nn.3, et decisum, fatum, vertere ; septuaginta heb- 
" domades decretum sunt Dei super populum tuum." Supplem. 
fcd Lex. Heb. Vox, ^nn, 

word 



( 234 ) 

word is thus understood in the Vulgate Latin *. It 
is understood in the same manner by Africanus f , 
Terttillian, Theodoret, Chrysostom J, and the Jew- 
ish expositors And the terms, used by Theodo- 
tion || and Aquila ^ in their translations, do not 
forbid the supposition, that such likewise was the 
idea which they annexed to it 

3. The word which in our English trans- 

lation is rendered transgression, does not mean 
transgression in general of any description, but a 
revolt with a high hand from the person to whom 
obedience is due as a sovereign. When that sove- 
reign therefore is God, and the revolt is taken in a 
religious sense, it is equivalent to a determined apos- 

* " Ut consumrneUir praavaricatio." 

f " Postquam consumraata sunt delicta." Afric. apud 
Hicron. Comment, in Dan. in loc. 

I " Sensus est primo, q. d. Donee impieias ad summum cres- 
u cat, ita ut amplius augeri nequeat, donee scilicet occidatur 
" Christus nostcr, quod summum fuit peccatum. Unde Tertull. 
" lib. contra Judasos legit, quoadusque inveteretur delictum. Ita 
" Theodor. Euseb. 1. 8. Demons, et S. Chrysost. orat. 2. con- 
" tra Judaeos. Sic medicus expectat crisin morbi, ut is totum 
44 se exserat, crescatque ad summum ; tumque curationem in- 
r - cipit, cum morbus plane, cognitus decrescere incipit." Cor- 
nel, a Lapid. Comment, in Dan. in loc. 

§ " J udasi vcrtunt ut perficiatur, vel ut cunsummetur, vel ad 
si summum perducatur." Poli. Synop. in loc. 

tasif : 



( 235 ) 

iasy t which apostasy may go on increasing from 
bad to worse, until at length by some peculiarly 
daring act of rebellion it is consummated, being then 
incapable of receiving any addition to its atro- 
city. 

4. The word ntttOT, as it is well known, signifies 
a sin-offering, as well as sin itself, from the circum- 
stance of the sins of the sacrificer being, under the 
Levitical dispensation, imputatively transferred to 
the victim which he sacrificed. In this sense I un- 
derstand mttOn as it occurs in the present pas- 
sage. 

5. In the 25th verse, the literal translation of the 
original D^W Din 1 ?! y&Pfj is to bring back 
and to build Jerusalem, which is an Hebraism equi- 
valent to the single expression to rebuild Jeru- 
salem. 

6. The latter end of the 25th verse is rendered 
in our common English version, the street shall be 
built again and the wall even in troublous times. 
" To this translation," as Dr. Blayney observes, 
(C the following objections occur. First, that the 
" verbs HD^jI SWD, being both feminine, can- 
fi not by rules of grammar be constructed with the 
" following nouns ; which are masculine. But, 
" granting that this objection might be got over by 
" making Jerusalem the subject of the verbs, and 
" the nouns street and wall to be used in apposi- 

" tion; 

I 



( 236 ) 

tion ; it may next be questioned by what autho 
" rity the word '{TWl is interpreted to signify a 

wall. In this sense it is certainly used no where 
" else ; and I think it will be found difficult to ac- 
" count for, how any such meaning can be deduced 
" from its root or from any term of affinity with 
tc j t # " passage is undoubtedly obscure; yet, 

I trust, not so incapable of elucidation as Michaelis 
represents it f. Though I give a somewhat differ- 
ent version of it from that of Dr. Blayney, yet it 
appears to me, as it previously did to him, that the 
fundamental error in our common translation is the 
considering the two words 2im and pin as sub- 
stantives, instead of verbs in the infinitive mood 
taken gerundively. The word 2m signifies to be 
enlarged: its infinitive SIPP therefore, used gerun- 
dively, will signify with enlarging itself or with con- 
tinual enlargement. The other verb yin signifies 
primarily to cut short, whence it acquires the me- 
taphorical sense of deciding or determining : its in- 
finitive \*V"*n therefore, used in a similar manner ge- 
rundively, will signify with firm deciding or with 

* Dr. Blayney 's Dissert, on the seventy weeks, p. 36, 37. 
f " The professor Michaelis owns himself totally at a loss, 
and unable to satisfy himself with his own or any other con- 
jectures about the true sense of these words," namely 
aim and fnn. Dr. Blayney's Dissert, on the seventy weeks, 

p. sr. 



( 237 ) 

JSftn decision*. Hence the import of the clause 
will be, that the city should he rebuilt, continually 
increasing until at length the work should be com- 
pleted : and that this work of rebuilding it should 
be carried on with the most firm decision on the 
part of the superintendants, in spite of all the op- 
position which they might encounter in the progress 
of it either from within or from without. 

7. I translate ED^nyil pV*2 in the skort space 
of the times. This is the literal version, which, 
with Mr. Wintle, I prefer to the metaphorical ver- 
sion in troublous times adopted in our English 
translation. The times, it is true, were sufficiently 
troublous, and many impediments were thrown in 
the way of the business even to the end of the ad- 
ministration of Nehemiah : but I doubt whether this 
be the precise meaning intended to be conveyed by 
the expression. Since the slvty nine weeks, which 
bring us unto Messiah the prince, are divided into 
seven xveeks and sixty txvo weeks, we may naturally 

* f< In one of the manuscripts collated at Paris the latter of 
? these words is read with the preposition n before it, rnnn ? 
" which strengthens the supposition of its' being a gerund : 
" and, though I do not find that any of the collations exhibit 
w 2irn with the like prefix, yet the reading of this word by the 
u lxx with the preposition si? before it affords some reason to 
" presume that it might have been so read in some of the move 
" ancient copies.'' Dr, Blayney's Dissert, p. 37. 

conclude. 



( 258 ) 

conclude, that they are so divided, not arbitrarily^ 
but for some good reason. Now, if we translate* 
the original expression in troublous times, we shall 
no where throughout the whole prophecy find any 
intimation, why the seven weeks are thus cut off 
from the beginning of the sixty nine weeks : but, if 
we render it in the short space of the times, we 
shall then learn, that this short space, namely the 
seven weeks, short when compared to the sixty two 
weeks, is the period during which Jerusalem should 
be rebuilt. Accordingly,, the passage is translated 
in the Vulgate in angustia temporum ; by A. Pur- 
ver, in the shortest of the times ; and in the Ency- 
clopedic, dans le peu de terns % 

8. In the 26th verse I consider the verb fTD* 
as the future of Kal, not of Niphal ; and thence 
think, with Dr. Blayney, that it ought to be ren- 
dered actively, though I do not assign precisely the 
same signification to it that he does. I understand 
it in a moral sense ; and render it he shall divorce, 
or he shall cut off by a bill of divorce. Such is the- 
import of its derivative nHHD ; which is properly 
rendered by our translators divorcement, though its 
literal ideal meaning is a cutting off: hence, in 
Deut. xxiv. 1, 3, where it occurs, Aquila explains 
it by the word hows ; and Symmachus, by ^qmquyis* 

* See Mr. Wintle's Translation of Daniel in loc. 

Mr. 



( 239 ) 

Air. Parkhurst asserts, that its radical verb rVQ 
does not occur in this sense in the Bible : but very 
rightly observes, that " there is no reason to doubt 
* but it was used in the Hebrew of Ecclus. xxv. 
" %6 or 36, If' she (thy wife) go not as thou wouldst 
" have her, cut her off (Gr. a.7rm^t) from thy 
"flesh*" I disagree with him in thinking that 
the verb fTD never occurs in the Bible in the sense 
of divorcing, for I believe such to be its import in 
the present passage. The use that I make of this 
translation will be seen hereafter. Many are very 
unwilling tcr give up the passive sense of the verb, 
and the translation of the subsequent clause *fy 
but not for himself considering the whole as a re- 
markable attestation to the doctrine of the atone- 
ment made by the voluntary sacrifice of the Son of 
God. Happily, the truth of this all-important doc- 
trine does not rest upon a passage, the context of 
which, as it appears to me, forbids it to be so tran- 
slated. The sixty nine weeks bring us unto the. 
'Messiah i yet, if fTD* be considered as the future 
of Niphal and be passively rendered, the Messiah 
is also to be cut off after these very slrty nine weeks.. 
Unto the Messiah however, as I have already ar- 
gued, must mean unto his coming either natural or 

* Heb. Lex. Vox n*D. Thus Buxtorf, " mrra Repudittm,. 
u quasi corijugii scissio vel rescissio/' 

official ; 



( £40 ) 

official : it cannot, without a most unnatural per* 
version of the phrase denote unto his death. And 
after sixty nine weeks must mean immediately after 
or at the close of sixty nine weeks : for, if after is 
to be taken in a large sense, this notation of time 
is altogether indefinite and therefore evidently use- 
less ; because, if Messiah be not cut off precisely 
at the end of the sixty nine weeks, but at the end of 
sixty nine weeks and some additional portion of time 
(no matter whether it be longer or shorter), it is not 
easy to discover the utility of specifying the exact 
term of sixty nine weeks, when the prophet might 
have expressed himself with perfect accuracy by 
saying sixty nine weeks and one year, two years, 
half a week, or whatever might be the additional 
portion of time. Since then the coming of the Mes~ 
siah is fixed to the end of the sixty nine weeks, his 
death cannot likewise be at the end of them : for 
that would make his coming synchronize with his 
death, and thus allow no time for the discharge of 
his prophetic office. To this may be added, that it 
can be positively shewn, as it will hereafter be 
shewn # , that his death takes place at the end of the 
seventy weeks: hence it plainly cannot also take 
place at the end of the sixty nine weeks; which we 

* Chap.vi. $ I. 1. (!•) (2.) (3.) 2. This point has already 
been briefly touched upon in Chap. sii. § I. 3. 

must 



( 241 ) 

must conclude (unless we make the word after per*" 
fectly nugatory and indefinite), if we translate the' 
passage after the weeks seven and the weeks sixty 
and two Messiah shall be cat off but not for him- 
self In fact, the most strenuous advocates for the 
unnatural supposition, that unto the Messiah means 
Unto the death of the Messiah, even after they have 
adopted the expedient of computing by lunar years 
of 360 days each, are stiff unable to make the cru- 
cifixion fall out, where according to their scheme it 
ought to fall out, at the close of the sixty nine weeks: 
for Bp. Lloyd, Mr, Marshall, and Mr. But!, are all 
obliged to acknowledge, that it happens, not at the 
end of the sixty nine weeks, but nearly a year after 
their expiration. But, if it be thus evident, that the 
death of the Messiah does not take place* at the close 
of the sixty nine weeks ; and, if it be acknowledged* 
that the word after cannot, without running into a 
most unwarrantable licence of interpretation, be 
understood in what Dr. Prideaux calls a large sense, 
but what in reality is just the sense which it may 
be convenient for an expositor to assign to it: then 
it will follow, that to render JTO* passively, and to 
understand it to relate to the cutting off of the 
Messiah by a violent death, must necessarily hd 
erroneous. If then it cannot be rendered passively 
as the future of Niphal, it must be rendered actively 
^as the future of KaL It must therefore relate to 

11 something 



( 242 ) 

something that the Messiah does, not to what he 
suffei*s : a conclusion indeed, which inevitably must 
be drawn from the circumstance of the tiling ex- 
pressed by Diy synchronizing with the coining of 
the Messiah, and preceding his death at the end of 
the seventy weeks. 

9. The word JTW* has usually been understood 
in the physical sense of destroying ; and, whatever* 
nominative case may be ascribed to it, has been 
translated shall destroy, and has been supposed to 
relate to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Ro- 
mans under Titus. I rather incline to interpret it 
in a moral sense, and to consider it as assigning the 
reason why Messiah should cut. off from himself by 
divorce his mystic wife the Levitical church. This 
verb, both in Pihel and Hiphil, signifies not only 
transitively to corrupt, but likewise intransitively 
to be corrupt or to act corruptly. Thus, in Pihel, 
we have "joy JintP thy people hath acted corrupt- 
ly * ; and thus, in Hiphil, the conjugation here used 
by Daniel, we have DTVlltPD tDVtl the people 
were acting corruptly f . Hence, in a similar man- 
ner, I translate the future Hiphil JVnfiP* shall act 
corruptly or shall corrupt themselves. 

10. In our common English version, the first 
clause at the beginning of the 26th verse is arranged 

* Exod. xxxii. 7# f 2 Cbron. xxvii. 2. 



( 243 ) 

attd translated Messiah shall be cut off, but ntit for 
himself; and the second clause, and the people of 
the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and 
the sanctuary. According to my arrangement and 
translation, the first clause is Messiah shall cat off 
by a bill of divorce, so that they shall be no mom 
his, both the city and the sanctuary • and the se- 
cond clause, the people of the prince that shall come 
shall act corruptly. In this arrangement of the 
two clauses, though not in the translation of them, 
I have followed Dn Blayney : and, for the propriety 
of it, in addition to the reasons already assigned, 
the word Wp} and the end thereof in the following 
or third clause of the verse, affords a fresh argu- 
ment. For, if the other arrangement be adopted, 
it is not easy to assign the antecedent, to which the 
pronoun thereof has reference. The Messiah it 
could not be : for how could his end be with a flood f 
Nor could it be the city and sanctuary : for then 
the pronoun should have been in the plural, in- 
stead of the singular, number. Nor could it bb 
the city singly, as including the sanctuary : because 
*Pyn the city is feminine, but the pronoun is mas* 
culine. Nor lastly could it be the people, if by 
people were meant the Roman army ; nor yet their 
Commander : because neither did nor his army, 
come to an end by a flood; but, on the contrary, 
Succeeded in utterly destroying Jerusalem, But, 

r a if 



( 244 ) 

if by the people of the prince that should come b© 
intended the Jewish nation, which it plainly must 
be according to the present arrangement, but which 
it no less plainly cannot be according to the other 
arrangement ; then both the grammar is duly pre- 
served, and the import of the prophetic imagery re- 
mains unviolated. For we obtain a regular ante- 
cedent for thereof namely the Jewish nation : and 
the end of that nation was by a flood ; which, as it 
is well known, signifies in the prophetic language 
a hostile invasion ; that, like a mighty inundation, 
sweeps away all before it, and spreads havock and 
desolation over a whole country *. 

* For this argument I am indebted to Dr. Blayney. He 
himself indeed understands fp to mean the cutting off or the 
•excision of the Jewish nation, not the end or termination of it. 
But I doubt whether the word will bear such a translation. 
The end is called yp, because it cuts off a term of existence from 
the preceding period ; not because the nation, to which the 
substantive is applied, is cut of by hostile excision.* Had the 
Jewish nation quietly and without bloodshed merged into the 
Roman empire, its end would just have completely arrived, 
and that end might just as properly have been expressed by the 
word fp, as it is at present. The violence of its downfall is de- 
scribed; not by rp which simply denotes its termination, but by 
rjow the deluge or hostile invasion that effected it. Indeed he 
himself immediately after translates the very same word, wh?n 
connected with war, by the end; as thus, wit o t he end of a 
mar, 

11. The. 



( 245 ) 

11. The feminine Niphal participle flSHW Si 
the last clause of the 26th verse is by our translators 
not ill rendered determined: but they improperly 
construct it with the plural substantive desolations, 
instead of the feminine singular substantive war. 
It is a participle of the same verb *pn, that occurs 
towards the latter end of the 25th verse. The 
meaning of this verb 1 there considered to be to 
(led >: or to determine: and in the same sense I 
tl:. k it ought here also to be understood. The 
most obvious and natural construction of the pre- 
sent passage is to suppose, that the feminine parti- 
ciple n^nnj agrees with the feminine substantive 
ri.0nb.t3, which it immediately succeeds. These 
two words therefore constructed together will sig- 
nify a war firmly decided upo?i, or a war inevitably 
predetermined. 

12. In the 27th verse I have followed Dr. Blay- 
ney and Mr. Wintle in translating fp3 the border, 
as being that version of the word which seems the 
most easy and the least constrained. Nor in rea- 
lity does it at all clash with Christ's quotation of 
the phrase the abomination of desolation, which in 
the Hebrew immediately follows " Our Sa- 
" viour's words," says Dr. Blayney, " are thus re- 
" ported by St. Matthew ; When ye therefore shall 
<£ see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by. 

J}miicl the prophet, stand in the holy place % 



( 246 ) 

u tu tottw aytw* : and by St. Mark somewhat differ* 
" ently ; But, when ye shall see the abomination of 
(i desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand* 
" ing where it ought not, on* » t- But by St, 
" Luke they are evidently paraphrased; And, when 
$< ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, 

" cotXnfA J, From which difference it is evident, 
" first of all, that the evangelists did not think it 
" necessary to adhere to the precise words used by 
" our Lord, provided they kept up to the sense of 
" them and secondly, that by the abomination of 
" desolation standing in the holy place, or where it 
" ought not, the same is meant as by Jerusalem 
u compassed with armies; the armies of the Roman 

empire, which were an abomination to the Jews 
" on account of their standards to which a religious 
(i worship was paid at the same time that they 
" were used as the immediate instrument of their 
il desolation. Let us now consider the Hebrew 
" text. Some persons seem to be much elated 

(perhaps more so than there is occasion for) on 
* ( account of a discovery lately made in the colla- 

tion of a Hebrew manuscript in the royal library 
*? at Paris, which is said to contain a reading more 

* Ch, xxiv. }5, f Ch, xiii. 14. J Chi xxi. 20, 

^ Joseph, de bell, Jud. 1. vi. c. 6. § 1. 

" conformable 



< 247 ) 

u conformable to the words cited by our Savi- 
" our, than that which is found in the printed 
" copies. The difference is, that, instead of 
n DDtPB D'aiptP bv\ the manuscript reads 
" timtta frf* %Pftti1; which literally 

** translated is, and in the temple shall be the abo* 
" mutation of desolation, or of the dtsolator> and is 
" the same with what is to be met with in the Latin 
" Vulgate, et erit in templo abqminatio dcsolationis. 
" But I am afraid there is a much greater reforma- 
" tion of the text made here, than can reasonably 
M be expected, or indeed be approved of. Thus 
" much perhaps we may be induced to give the 
" manuscript credit for, that it has given the true 
" reading of abomination in the singular num- 
" ber, instead of D'VlptP in the plural : which latter 
" is disclaimed by most of the ancient versions, as 
" well as by the Gospel citations ; and besides will 
" scarcely afford a tolerable sense consistent with 
" grammar *. It is also easy to conceive how a 
" transcriber might be led to add the Mem to the 
" end of 'f\p*fff from the next word beginning with 

* " If we read n*mptf, it cannot be construed in regfmine 
M with ihe following noun, as it should then be read >tiptb, 
M Of this our translators seem to have been well aware, who, 
u as well as the Syriac, have referred it back to the noun pre- 
<4 ceding rjja ; but, with what propriety as to the sense, is mat* 
M ter of question," 

« the 



( 248 ) 

^ the same letter, after which the transposition of 
" the Jod would be deemed a natural correction, 
" But the 'difference is so very great between 
" byi and JTrV ^mi, that the one could not 
- £ possibly be substituted for the other by accident ; 
6C and, supposing there was a design to change 
f iTiT VlJ'n^l, I think it would puzzle any man 
ff to gue^s why the words £pID bjH should be fixed 
" on to be placed in their stead ; whereas the rea- 
" son is sufficiently obvious for making the change 
fc in the contrary direction. But after all, is it true 
" that the new found reading is more conformable 
H in this particular to our Lord's quotation than the 
" old established one? To me, I must confess, 
f' it appears otherwise. Indeed it is far from be-? 
" ing clear, that our Saviour cited from the pro- 
" phet Daniel any more than the two words which 
" signify the abomination of desolation; for his 
" words are, JVhen ye shall see the abomination of 
" desolation spoken of b\y JJariiel the prophet : 
ci whereas, if the r$st had been a part of the cita- 
" tion, it ought rather to have been expressed thus, 
ec JVhen ye shall see the abomination of desolation 
H standing in the holy place, or where it ought not, 
u as spoken of) or foretold, by the prophet Daniel. 
■" But neither do the terms holy city, or xvhere it 
a ought not, necessarily imply the structure or edi- 
■ ' f ice °f the temple; but take in the environs of it 



( m ) 

H also, the mountain on which it was built: and 
ff even the whole city with its suburbs, on account 
fj of its relation to God, was accounted holy too, 
and therefore unfit to be profaned by the ap- 
" proach of any thing so abominable, as were the 
" idols of heathen worship. Nor is it true, that 
" the Roman legions ever did set up their stand- 
" ards in the temple, bD*H3, that is, within or 
" upon the house or building, till such time as the 
" city was finally taken : whereas the fact alluded 
*' to by Christ was manifestly something prior to 
" that event, as a prognostic of it*; and doubtless 
" was meant of that near approach which Cestius 
u made, when he had taken the lower town, and 
" came near enough to attempt setting fire to the 
" outer gate of the temple f . Then I think it 
" might properly be said, that the abomination of 
" desolation was bv, upon the border or out- 
" skirt of both the city and temple ; for Pp3, 
fi which primarily signifies zving, is used metapho- 

* This is plain, both from the circumstance of our Lord's 
directing his disciples not to think flight necessary until they 
should see the abomination of dtsolation standing in the holy 
place ; aqd from St. Lute's explaining this language to mean, 
not the final destruction of Jerusalem when the standards were 
worshipped in the temple, but the previous compassing of the city 
with armies. 

f Joseph, de bell. Jud. lib. ii. cap. IS). § 5* 

*' rically 



( 250 ) 

61 rically to denote the border or extremity of any 
thing, as of a garment, and also of a place or 
" territority. So that the abomination of desolation 
u being on the border answers well to Jerusalem 
u being compassed with armies, standing in the holy 
xt place, and where, in the estimation of a Jew 
<l at least, they certainly ought not. This there- 
" fore I conceive to be the genuine reading, 
" tDDfcya ^JW *7V\ and that it ought to be 
" rendered thus ; And on the border (encompassing 
*f. and pressing close upon the besieged) shall be 
u the abomination of desolation *." 

Yet, though I believe that the passage ought thus 
to be translated and understood, I think it right to 
observe, that might also be rendered upon 

the wing, that is to say, upon the wing of a building. 
According to this version, the wing might be under* 
stood of the tozver Antonia, which formed a kind of 
wing to the temple, being joined to it by porticos : 
and the placing the abomination of desolation upon 
that wing might relate to the lodgment made by the 
Romans with their military idols the standards f 
upon the tower Antonia, at the very time when 
Titus is said to have had the first intelligence that 
the daily sacrifices of the temple had ceased a little 

* Dr. Blayney's Dissertation on the seventy weeks, p. 50 x 

Jfi, 52. 

Tacitns calls them propria kgionum nvmina, 

before 



( 251 ) 

before *— But to this translation the objection wifl 
manifestly recur, that it does not accord with the 
sense which our Lord gives to the expression. He 
exhorts his disciples to flee into the mountains from 
the devoted city, when they should see the abomina- 
tion of desolation standing in the holy place ; or, as 
St. Luke paraphrases his words, to flee into the 
mountains, when they should see Jerusalem com- 
passed with armies. It is plain therefore, that 
Christ considered the abomination of desolation as 
standing in the holy place before the Roman stand- 
ards were set up and worshipped in the precincts of 
the temple, even from the very time when Jerusa- 
lem was compassed with armies ; and thence ex- 
horted his disciples to avail themselves of the op- 
portunity that should be afforded them of seeking 
their safety in flight, which they could not have 
done had they waited until the standards were set 
up either in the tower Antonia or in the temple. 
Now with this view of the prophecy, if we translate 
by upon the border, that is, upon the extreme 
circumference of the city, the passage will exactly 
agree. And, in further confirmation of the pro- 
priety of the version, it may be observed, that our 
Lord does not charge the disciples to wait until they 
saw the daily sacrifice taken away, and then to flee^ 

* See Dr. Blayney's Dissert, p. 53, 54, 

into 



( 252 ) 

into the mountains; because, had they waited thus 
long, their flight would have been impracticable: 
but only until they saw the abomination of desola- 
tion standing in the holy place, or where it ought 
not ; in other words, until they saw Jerusalem com- 
passed by the Roman armies. Accordingly, they 
waited exactly so long. Cestius invested Jerusa- 
lem; and the Christians acknowledged the sign 
predicted by their divine master in his explanation 
of this part of Daniels prophecy. But how could 
they escape, as they had been warned to do, when 
the city was compassed by hostile assailants ? Their 
Lord was not unmindful of them ; nor was it pos- 
sible, that one jot or one tittle of his words should 
fail. Cestius, unaccountably upon military prin- 
ciples, drew off his army for a short season • and 
the Christians escaped *, 

13. The 

* Mr. Butt gives a different turn to the translation upon the 
*winsr, supposing it to import, that the abomination of desolation 
«r the Jio?nan eagles should take wing towards Jerusalem. Tins 
exposition is certainly not liable to the same objection as that 
which refers the wing to the tower Antonia considered as a wing 
of the temple : but it may be a question, how far the Hebrew 
idiom will accord with the English. We indeed speak of g, 
bird being upon the wing, meaning that the bird is in the act of 
.flying; but it does not therefore follow, that tpa would con- 
vey any such idea to the mind of a Jew. The expression in 
Psalm xviii. 10, upon the wings of the wind, which Mr. Butt 
cites in support of his gloss, has no analogy to our English 

idiom, 



( 253 ) 

13. The translation of the last clause of the pre- 
diction is now the only matter which remains to be 
accounted for : and here the chief difficulty will be 
removed, if we can ascertain the proper nominative 
case to the verb ^DD shall be poured. This, I am 
persuaded, is the feminine substantive H^S cm utter 
consumption or full end. The compounded word *TV1 
I take conjunctively for even u?itil, and consider it 
as limiting the time during which the sacrifice and 
meat-offering should be abolished and the land of 
Judea should lie desolate. The time, thus speci- 
fied for the continuance of their abolition, is the pe- 
riod which elapses from their being caused to cease 
in the half zveek to the pouring of utter destruction 
upon the desolator : " in half a week he shall cause 
" the sacrifice and meat-offering to cease (for upon 
" the border shall be the abomination that maketh 
i4 desolate), even until an utter end, and that 
" firmly decided upon, shall be poured upon the. 
" desolator*" 

14. In 

idiom. It is not said, that Jehoxah was upon the whig, but that 
he few upon the wings of the wind. Comment, on the proph. of 
the lxx weeks, p. 6. 

* " See *w used in this manner with a future verb, Gen. 
44 xxxviii. 11. Prov. vii. 23. Hos. x. 12. It is not clear, 
" whether our last English translators of the Bible did not 
u understand njn in this sense, as may be seen from pointing 
rt their version in the following manner: and for the over- 

4t spreading 



( 254 ) 

14. In this passage, the verb ^Ifi again occurs 
for the third time in the course of the present pro- 
phecy, and in the same form of its feminine Niphal 
participle rTiHrO that it had already once before 
occurred in. 1 still translate it in the same sense 
of firmly deciding, and suppose it here to agree 
with the feminine substantive n 1 ?^ the nominative 
case to the verb *]Dfi ; an utter end, and that 
firmly decided upon : that is to say, though venge- 
ance may seem to linger, yet is it firmly deter- 
mined, it shall surely be poured out at the last 
upon the head of the now triumphant desola- 
tor. 

15. The last word in the prophecy OtiW I 
render actively the desolator, instead of passively 
the desolated. The participle itself is doubtless 
capable of being rendered in either sense, being 
from its formation ambiguous : but, since Daniel 
twice elsewhere* uses it actively, and since (as 
will hereafter appear f) there are abundant rea- 

5 1 spreading of abominations he shall make it desolate , even until 
*' the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon 
€t the desolate. But it is certainly so taken in the old English 
¥ version of Queen Elisabeth's time, which reads, even until 

the consummation determined shall be poured upon the desolate*' 
Blayney's Dissert, p. 54. 

* Dan. viii. 13 — xii. 11. 

-f Chap. vi. § VI. 3. 

4 song 



( 255 ) 

sons for concluding that it ought so likewise to 
be understood here, I have translated it accord- 
ingly * 

* It is translated in the same manner by Bp, Lloyd, 



CHAPTER. 



( 25o ) 



CHAPTER V* 

Concerning the mutual relation of the different 
clauses of the prophecy considered in the ab- 
stract. 

It is highly useful and important to obtain a clear 
view in the abstract of the mutual relation of the 
different clauses of a prophecy, before we attempt 
to interpret that prophecy by applying it to facts. 
Such was the plan, on which Mr. Mede drew up 
his Clavis Apocalyptica ; wherein the synchronisms 
of the different parallel parts of the Revelation are 
merely arranged and established, without even an 
attempt to explain the meaning of the predictions 
themselves. These being duly arranged, he was 
then prepared to enter upon the work of regular 
exposition by comparing the prophecies with their 
supposed historical accomplishment The plan is 
so judicious, that I purpose to adopt it in the fol- 
lowing investis;ation. 



Dan. 



( c m ) 



Dan. IX. 

24. Weeks seventy are the precise period upon 
thy people and upon thy holy city, to complete the 
apostasy, and to perfect the sin-offerings, and to 
make atonement for iniquity, and to cause him who 
is the righteousness of the eternal ages to come, and 
to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint 
the Most Holy One. 

25. But know and understand, from the going 
forth of an edict to rebuild Jerusalem unto the 
Anointed One the Prince shall be weeks seven and 
weeks sixty and two : it shall be rebuilt, with per- 
petual increase and firm decision, even in the short 
space of the times. 

9,6. And, after the w r eeks seven and the weeks 
sixty and two, the Anointed One shall cut off by 
divorce, so that they shall be no more his, both the 
city and the sanctuary. 

Jbrthe people of the prince that shall come shall 
act corruptly : but the end thereof shall be with a 
flood ; and unto the end of a w ar firmly decided 
upon shall be desolations. 

27. Yet he shall make firm a covenant with 
many for one week. 

And in half a week he shall cause the sacrifice 
and meat-offering to cease (for upon the border 

S shall 



( 258 ) 

shall be the abomination that maketh desolate), even 
until an utter end, and that firmly decided upon, 
shall be poured upon the desolator. 

From an attentive view of this prophecy we may, 
I think, establish the following positions, which will 
be useful in binding down the interpretation of it 
within certain fixed limits and in checking any un- 
warrantable flights of imagination. 

L The seventy weeks, mentioned in the $Ath 
verse, must be understood as looking prospec- 
tively* 

This point I argue in the following manner. 
The expression tyy^M} is rendered se- 

venty weeks by all the old versions * : it is so un- 
derstood by all the ancient commentators in their 
several expositions of the prophecy : it is likewise 
so understood by the Jewish writers, notwithstand- 
ing the formidable argument which it holds forth in 
favour of Christianity : and the general context of 
the whole prediction imperiously requires, that it 
should be so understood. The version of it pro- 
posed by Dr. Blayney, namely weeks sufficient, 
possesses none of these recommendations. It con- 
tradicts the translation, which has generally been 

* I have already observed, that the oriental versions may 
however, like the Hebrew, be ambiguous. 

received 



( c 259 ) 

received both by ancients and moderns, both by 
Jews and Christians : it does not quadrate with the 
context of the prophecy : it exhibits Daniel as af- 
fecting unnecessary obscurity : it produces a phra- 
seology unparalleled in Scripture : it is palpably 
contrived to serve a turn. If then the expression 
must necessarily be rendered seventy weeks, those 
seventy weeks must necessarily look prospectively ; 
because the particulars to be accomplished within 
them cannot be shewn to have been accomplished 
within the precise number of seventy weeks or 490 
years previous to Daniel's vision. 

2. Since the seventy weeks are the appointed pe- 
riod to effect six different particulars specified by 
Daniel, their termination must be marked by the 
effecting of some one or more of these particulars. 

This is manifest from the circumstance of the 
seventy weeks being a precise limited time. If they 
do not expire with some one of the specified parti- 
culars, but extend beyond the last of them, then 
they cannot with propriety be simply said to have 
been appointed for the effecting of them : because, 
if they extend beyond the last to no remarkable era, 
then a smaller portion of time, precisely reaching to 
the last, ought to have been marked out; and, if 
they extend beyond the last to an era noted for 
some remarkable event, then that event ought to 
have been specified in the list of particulars, other- 

s» 2 wise 



( 260 ) 

wise the list is defective, and they are in reality the 
appointed period to effect something more than the 
prophet teaches us they should effect. On the other 
hand, if they do not expire with some one of the 
specified particulars, but terminate before all those 
particulars are accomplished, then a larger portion 
of time ouirht to have been marked out : because it 
is manifest, that seventy weeks cannot be said to' 
have been appointed to effect all the particulars in 
question, if some of the particulars in question be 
not effected until long after the expiration of the 
seventy zveeks. But, if the seventy zveeks can nei- 
ther extend beyond the last particular, nor fall short 
of it; then they must terminate exactly with its 
accomplishment. 

3. Though the seventy weeks must terminate with 
some one or more of the particulars specified, we arc 
not bound to suppose that all the particulars arc 
precisely synchronicaL 

This point seems to require no proof: for, since 
it is only said that the seventy weeks are the pre- 
cise period within which all the particulars should 
be effected, it is plain, that, though they must ex- 
pire with some one or more of the particulars, the 
others may be effected either earlier or later in the 
course of the seventy weeks. 

4. Since the seventy zveeks are the appointed pe- 
riod upon the holy city, and since they commence 

with 



( 2ol ) 

with the edict for the rebuilding of it, they must 
he the times of the holy city, and must therefore 
synchronize with its duration. 

This position is Mr/Mede's*; and he adduces it 
for the purpose of confuting those, who with Func- 
cius compute the seventy weeks from the seventh 
year of Artaxerxes and make them expire with the 
passion of Christ |. But it equally confutes his 
own hypothesis, even if we allow his chronological 
arrangement to he better established than it is. 
For, if the seventy weeks be the times of the holy 
city, and if by the holy city the literal holy city be 
understood, then its times amount not merely to 
4-90 years as Air. Mede endeavours to shew, but to 
605 years : because Jerusalem began to be rebuilt 
in pursuance of the edict of Cyrus in the year A. C. 
536, and was destroyed by the Romans in the year 
70 of the Christian era J, 

* Si These seventy weeks are the times allotted for the conti- 
" nuance of the Holy city, and therefore must they last as long 
" as it lasted, and end with the end thereof." Works. B. iii. 
p. ^97. 

f " Funccius his computation of the seventy weeks from the 
u seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (whence to Christ's 
u passion he finds just 4£)0 years)" is untenable, " because it 
" ends the seventy weeks (which by the text were allotted for 
" the Holy city) long before the times of the Holy city were 
" fulfilled/' Works. B. iii. p. 710. 

t I have already shewn, that the literal Jerusalem did most 
undoubtedly begin to be rebuilt from the first year of Cyrus. 

5. Th e 



( 262 ) 

5. The seven weeks, the sixty and two weeks, and 
the one zveek, must he estimated as component parts 
of the seventy weeks. 

This appears from the general context of the pro- 
phecy: since the seventy weeks look prospectively 
and are evidently mentioned as the leading number 
in the introduction to the prophecy, and since the 
smaller periods of weeks also look prospectively and 
are no less evidently mentioned as subordinate num- 
bers in the prophecy itself, the natural presumption 
is, that the smaller prospective numbers are in- 
cluded in the larger prospective number. It fur- 
ther appears from the circumstance of there being 
no date assigned to the commencement of* the se- 
venty weeks, except that which is assigned to the 
commencement of the seven weeks that precede the 
sixty and tzvo weeks: whence we must conclude, 
that the seventy weeks and the seven weeks begin 
synchronically. It lastly appears from the exact 
accordance of the smaller numbers with the larger 
number; seven weeks, sixty tzvo zveeks, and one 
week, making up the precise sum of seventy, 
weeks. 

6. The seventy weeks must be continuous; that is 
to say, the seven weeks, the sixty two weeks, and the, 
one week, into which the seventy weeks are subdi- 
vided, must succeed each other in regular chrono- 
logical order, the tzvo latter of these smaller periods 

commencing 



( 263 ) 

commencing exactly where their respective prede- 
cessors terminated. 

This position is one that must naturally and ob- 
viously occur to any person, whose judgment is not 
warped by a predilection for some favourite system 
which requires a different arrangement. If we 
concede the liberty of chronologically "separating 
the smaller periods from each other, we must at 
once give up every systematic interpretation of the 
prophecy ; and, instead of feeling ourselves to tread 
upon sure ground, we must resign ourselves to the 
arbitrary humour of the commentator. One per- 
son may wish to separate the seven weeks from the 
sixty two weeks ; another, to separate the sixty two 
weeks from the one week ; and a third, to separate 
them all three from each other, and to consider 
them as wholly distinct and unconnected periods. 
Every one of these various opinions has had its ad- 
vocates : but who has a right to command assent to 
his own particular mode of separation in preference 
to any other? If the three small periods be not 
continuously successive, it appears to me, that by 
the aid of a tolerable share of ingenuity we may 
make pretty much what we please of the prophecy. 
We may, with Sir Isaac Newton, calculate the seven 
weeks from the yet future rebuilding of Jerusalem 
to the second advent of the Messiah ; and, sepa^ 
rating both this period and that of the sixty two 

meks 



( 264 ) 

Weeks from the one meek, make the one week imme- 
diately succeed the crucifixion. We may, with 
Hippolytus and Apollinarius *, fix the one week to 
the age of the supposed personal Elias and Anti- 
christ, place it at the end of the world, and make 
the half -week the same as the three times and a half 
or the 1 260 days. We ma}-, with Bp. Lloyd, Mr. 
Marshall, and Mr. Butt, suppose the seven zceeks 
and the sixty two weeks to be continuous, but -deny 
the continuity of the sixty tzco weeks and the one 
week. We may, in short, ring as many changes 
upon the three numbers as we think proper ; but 
what solid conviction shall Ave be able to work in 
the mind of any unprejudiced person? Nor is this 
the whole that may be said : the analogy both of 
the present prophecy and of other numerical pro- 
phecies requires that they should be estimated as 
continuous. Few doubt the continuity of the seven 
weeks and the sivty two weeks : indeed the complete 
reading in the 26th verse as preserved by Aquila 
and the Arabic, respecting the integrity of which I 
have no doubt, compels us to acknowledge their 
continuity. If then txvo of the periods be continu- 
ous, by what authority shall we pronounce, in defi- 
ance of analogy, that the third is not continuous ? 
So again : in all the prophecies relative to the three 

* Hieron. Comment, in Dan. in loc. 

times 



( 265 ) 

times and a half the period spoken of is never so 
expressed, but uniformly a time, times (or, if the 
word be supposed to be in the dual number, two 
times), and the dividing of a time ; yet no person 
ever doubted the continuity of the one time, the two 
times, and the half time, or ever thought of sepa- 
rating them from each other. Surely then analogy 
requires us to allow the continuity of the seven 
weeks, the sixty two weeks, and the one iveek, which 
jointly make up the complete period of the seventy 
weeks. 

7. The holy city at the beginning of the prophecy 
must be the same as the city destined to be rebuilt ; 
and the city destined to be rebuilt must be the same 
as the city which Messiah cuts off from being his 
by divorce. 

This position requires no other proof than an at- 
tentive consideration of the context. 

8. The prince that should come (in the 26th verse) 
must be the same person as the prince the Anointed 
One (in the 25th verse) ; that is to say, they must 
alike be the Messiah. 

That the prince in each verse should mean the 
same person, is required by the context : otherwise 
the prophecy is chargeable with the obscurity of in- 
troducing another person under the very same title 
as the Messiah, without any regular specification 
that another person is intended. The prince in the 

25th 



( 266 ) 

25th verse must be the Messiah, because he is so 
Styled : the prince in the 26th verse must also be 
the Messiah, both because the most obvious con- 
struction of the context requires it, and because the 
word is joined with an epithet which plainly shews 
that the Messiah alone can be intended. He that 
should come * is a well known descriptive appella- 
tion of the long expected Saviour. It was thus 
that his advent was foretold by Jacob : " the sceptre 
" shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from 
" between his feet, until Shiloh shall come f It 
was thus that he was announced by Balaam : " there 
" shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall 
" rise out of Israel ; — out of Jacob shall come he 
" that shall have dominion J." It was thus also 
that he was predicted by Isaiah, and Malachi, and 
Micah : " the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and 
u unto them that turn from transgression in Ja- 
<c cob§: — behold I will send my messenger, and 
" he shall prepare the way before me ; and the 
" Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his 
" temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom 
(C ye delight in ; behold, he shall come, saith the 
f} Lord of hosts: but who may abide the day of 
54 his coming, and who shall stand when he appear*- 

* *0 tp%o/A£j>o?, as the appellation is expressed in the Gospel* 
f Gen. xlix. 10. X Numb. xxiv. 17, 19- 

§ Isaiah lix. 20. 

" eth 



( 267 ) 

tl eth*? — but thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though 
u thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet 
" out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is 
£ to be ruler in Israel f." As he was announced 
by this style in the Old Testament, so is he ac- 
knowledged by the same style in the New. Thus 
we find that the chief priests, whose lips in this in- 
stance at least preserved knowledge, owned that 
Micah foretold the Messiah under the appellation 
of he that should come J. Thus, when John the 
Baptist sent his disciples to inquire whether Jesus 
were indeed the Messiah, the question which they 
ask is, " Art thou he that should come, or do we 
" look for another §?" Thus the Samaritan w t o- 
man professes her faith in the expected advent of 
the Saviour ; " I know that Messias cometh which 
" is called Christ ; when he is come, he will tell us 
" all things ||." And thus does our Lord himself 
speak of his ministry and coming : " behold, these 
" three years / come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, 
" and find none ^[." Exactly the same language is 
held respecting the second advent : " for yet a little 
" while, and he that shall come will come, and will 
" not tarry ## ." But it is needless to multiply 

* Malach. iii. 1,2. f Micali v. 2. % Matt. ii. 6, 
§ Matt. xi. 4—Luke vii. 19, 20. || John iv. 25. 

kuke xiii. 7. ** Heb. x. Sf, 

citations 



( <26"8 ) 

citations to prove so clear a matter. Not only the 
particular context of the present prophecy, but the 
general context of the whole Bible, requires us to 
understand the Messiah by Daniel's Prince that 
should come 

9. Tiie person, who confirms the covenant with 
many and who causes the sacrifice and meat-offering 
to cease, must be the Messiah. 

This position necessarily follows from the pre- 
ceding one ; for there is no other nominative case to 
the succeeding verbs except the Prince that shall 
come. 

10. The righteousness of the everlasting age--, 
jucntioned in the 24th verse, must be understood of 
a person ; and that person must be the Messiah. 

It is said to be part of the office of the seventy 
weeks to cause this eternal righteousness to come. 
Now, since the seventy weeks look forward to the 
atonement for iniquity, made by the death of Christ ; 
and since the 24th verse professes to be a detail of 
the grand particulars which they are to effect, the 
coming of Christ will be left wholly unnoticed un- 
less it be specified by the phrase now under consi- 
deration. But, that it fa specified by it, appears 
from the subsequent context. The prince that 



* See Bp. Kidder's Demons, of the Messiah, part I. chap. v. 
p. 37. 

8 should 



C 2© ) 

should come is the eternal righteousness that should 

be caused to come. And his coming is declared to 

be at the end of the seven weeks and the sixty two 

weeks : for so long is to be the time unto the lies- 

w 

siah ; which expression cannot mean unto his death, 
but must mean unto his coming. Such personifica- 
tions, as that of righteousness, are not uncommon in 
Scripture. Thus Christ is styled by Jeremiah our 
righteousness* : and thus he is said by St. Paul to 
be " made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and 
" sanctification, and redemption^" Thus also, in 
the same vein of personification, Isaiah, speaking 
either of Abraham or Cyrus, asks, " Who raised up 
" righteousness from the east?" for such is the lite- 
ral translation of the original, though the whole 
context shews that a person is intended %\ and thus 
the same prophet, foretelling the future glories of the 
house of Israel, declares, that in the last ages God 
will a make their officers peace, and their exactors 
" righteousness §. " Similar phraseology was per- 
fectly familiar to the Targumists, who were wont to 
style the expected Messiah the J Ford of God, the 
Voice of God, the Name of God, or the Wisdom of 
God\\. The first of these titles is claimed for our 

* Jcrem. xxiii. 6. + 1 Cor. i. 30. 

X Isaiah xli. 2, 3. § Isaiah lx. 17, 

|| See Jamieson's Vindication of the doctrine of Scripture, 
b, i. passim. 

Lord 



( 270 ) 

Lord by St. John; and the last, as we have just 
Seen, by St. Paul, who likewise denominates him 
the power of God*. All these appellations of the 
Messiah, which are plainly personifications, were 
so familiar to the Jews and their neighbours, that, 
when Simon Magus bewitched the Samaritans, giv- 
ing out that he was some great one, they unani- 
mously pronounced him to be the great power of 
God, which was only another mode of acknowledg- 
ing him to be the Christ. Hence I think myself 
perfectly warranted in understanding the righteous* 
ness of the eternal ages y whose corning Daniel an- 
nounces in the present prophecy, to be a personifi- 
cation of the Messiah. Nor am I singular in this 
interpretation. St Jerome tells us, that the He- 
brews of his time adopted it f : and they have been 
followed by more than one commentator in subse- 
quent ages both Christian and Jewish J. By thus 

expound- 

* " Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God/' 1 
Cor. i. 24. 

f " Hebraei quid de hoc loco sentiant brevi sermone per- 
u stringam, fldem dictorum his a quibus dicta sunt derelin- 
" quens- — Nascitur Christus, id est justitia sempiterna." Hie- 
ron. Comment, in Dan. in loc. 

I " Quid haec justitia ? — Est Christus, qui dicitur Jehovah 
" justitia ?wstra — Justitia haec dicitur ceterna, quia persona 
u qu93 hanc justitiam merita est infinita est ac aeterna" (Poli 
Synop. m loc). " Justitia sempiterna, Hcb. Justitia sccculo' 

" rum j 



( £71 ) 

expounding the eternal righteousness that should 
come to denote a person and not a thing, we shall 
make the passage exactly accord with the language 
of the New Testament, in which the appellation of 
the Just One or the Righteous One is peculiarly 
appropriated to the Messiah # . And it may further 
be observed, that there is one place in which this 
Just One is spoken of in the very phraseology of 
Daniel, almost as if an interpretation of this part of 
the prophecy had been designed : "they have slain 
u them, which shewed before of the coming of the 
Ct Just One, of whom ye have been now the be- 
" trayers and murderers f." 

11. The anointing of the Most Holy, mentioned 
in the Z4<th "verse, must relate to the anointing of a 
person; which person must be the Messiah. 

Dr. Blayney objects to this exposition of the clause, 
on the ground that " the words CD'fcHp tSTTp 
" holy of holies are constantly applied in the 
" Old Testament, not to persons, but to things; to 

" rum, id est Christus, qui, quasi sol, justitise suae radios in 
" omnium saeculorum, tarn ante quam post se, homines diffu- 
" dit, et Ecclesiam quasi regnum aetcrnum justitias, id est juste 
<{ et pie viventium, instituit. Ita interpretes, quin et Talmu- 
" distae ac Rabbini passim, per justitiam Itanc intelligunt Mes~ 
4t siam. Vide eos apud Finum lib. 5. Flagelli cap. 5." Cornel, 
a. Lapid. Comment, in Dan. in loc. 

* See Act™. 14. xxii. 14, f Acts vii. 52. 

" the 



( 272 ) 

C£ the temple or sanctuary itself, the altar, vessels, 
" and utensils belonging to the temple, together 
" with the offerings and other appurtenances of the 
" temple worship : and it was by the ceremony of 
" anointing that these things were directed to be 
" cleansed and sanctified*, so as to be fitted to 
" appear in the presence of that pure and holy Be- 
" ing, to whom this worship was directed f/' I 
cannot think this objection a very formidable one. 
So far as the mere words themselves are concerned, 
they are undoubtedly just as capable of being trans- 
lated the holy one of holy ones, as the holy thing of 
holy things. How they are to be understood, whe- 
ther of a person or of a thing, can only, I appre- 
hend, be determined by the context. Now, in the 
present instance, the context imperiously requires 
us to understand a person. In the course of the 
prophecy, we twice read of the Anointed One: and 
this Anointed One is styled the Prince^ and the 
Prince that should come. Hence it was argued, that 
the eternal righteousness that should come must be 
the Prince that should come : and it may now be 
similarly argued, that, according to the most natural 
view of the general context, the Most Holy that was 
to be anointed must be the person who is called the 
Anointed One in consequence of this "very anointing. 



* Exod, xxx. 25—29. f Dr. Blayney's Dissert, p. 22. 

Besides, 



( 273 ) 

Besides, if the eternal righteousness be a person, it 
will obviously follow, that the Most Holy is a person 
likewise. In this sense accordingly the clause has 
been understood by the Jews themselves, who per-* 
haps in some respects may be esteemed more unex* 
ceptionable evidence than Christian commentators *v 
The title of the Most Holy, as applied to Christ, 
perfectly corresponds with the language used re- 

* According to Jerome, the interpretation of the Hebrews- 
was, " Ungetur sanctus sanctorum, de quo in psalterio legimus? 
" propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuns, oleo latitia pros consort ibus 
" tuis. Qui et in alio loco dicet, de se, Sancti estate, quia et 
" ego sanctus sum' (Hieron. Comment, in Dan. in loc). Cor- 
nelius a Lapide speaks to the same purpose. " Et ungatitf 
u sanctus sanctorum. Ut scilicet Spiritu Sancto consecretur~ 
" Christus in sanctissimum sacerdotem, regem, prophetam ? 
" doctorem, legislatorem, et redemptorem orbis, Hebrsei, ut 
ii mox dicam, vertunt, et ungatur sanctitas sanctitatum.,\e\ sa?ic~ 
<£ turn sanctorum, vel sanctuarium sanctuariorum, qui nan est 
" alius quam ipse Messias sanctificatus de Jiliis David, ait ft, 
" Barnahaman apud Finum lib* v. Flagelli c. 5. Et R. Mo- 
M ses Gerundensis, Messias, ait, vacatur sanctuarium sanctuario-> 
" rum, quiafuturum erat, ut in eo, secundum humanitatem, omnes 
u thesauri sapientice et sciential Dd rtquiesCerent ; eratque ipse su- 
if per omnem creaturam oko gratice ac beneplaciti Dei ungcndusa 
" Unde merito Hcbrceisdictus est Messias, Greece Christus, Lai'm& 
a Unctus. Ita ipse apud Galatin. lib. iv. cap. IS. Q-uocirca 
" Aquila vertit ad ungendum samtvficatum sanctifiGatorum; Sy- 
" rus, Septuaginta hebdemedes requicscent super popnlum tuum, 
Si et ad perficiendumvisionem et prophet as, et ad Christum sanctum 
u sanctorum," Comment, in Dan. in \qq, 

T specting 



( 274 ) 

specting him in the New Testament He is called 
by the angel at the annunciation that holy thing 4 : 
by St. Peter, the Holy Oflef: by the whole 
assembly of Christians, the holy child of God%: 
by St. Paul, holy and undefiled\: and by St 
John, the Holy One\\. Nay even the very de- 
vils were constrained to acknowledge him as the 
Holy One of God % 

1 2. The causing of the sacrifice and meat-offering 
to cease must be considered as synchronizing with the 
appearance of the abomination of desolation^ that is 
to say y so far synchronizing, that they are caused to 
cease in the course of the same war that Jerusalem 
is compassed by the Roman armies. 

My reasons for laying down the present position 
are these — 1. The citation of our Lord fixes the 
appearance of the abomination of desolation to the 
age of the Jewish war. Now, though he seems to 
have quoted no more than the two words *pp*gf 
DBtPD the abomination that maketh desolate, yet 
those words do not stand in an insulated and detach* 
td form in the prophecy, but are immediately con- 
nected with the neighbouring 'context. The chro- 
fiology therefore of the neighbouring context must, 



* To kym, Luke i, 35, 
i Acts iv. 30. 

j] 1 John ji« gQ. Apoc. iii, 7. 



-f Tov ecyiov. Acts iii. 14. 
§ Heb, vii. 26. 
f Mark i. 24. 



by every rule of composition, be determined by iheit 
Chronology. Hence I believe Bp. Lloyd, Mr. Mar- 
shall, and Mr. Butt, to be right in also fixing the 
abolition of the sacrifice and meat-offering to the age 
of the Jewiih war, and in explaining it to mean the 
literal abolition of the Levitical sacrifices by the in- 
strumentality of the Romans, For, when we read 5 
In half a zveek he shall cause the sacrifice and meat- 
offering to cease, for upon the border shall be the 
abomination that maketh desolate ; we are forced 
almost irresistibly to conclude, by the obvious tenor 
of the passage, that these particulars ought to be 
referred to one and the same period ; nor can that 
interpretation be thought natural, which entirely 
separates the taking away of the sacrifice from the 
appearance of the abomination This opinion 
will receive a vast accession of strength, if we find 
in the event, that the Levitical sacrifices were abo- 
lished synchronically with the appearance of the. 
desolating abomination upon the border. But, that 
.such was actually the case, is abundantly well 
known. The desolating abomination is pinned down 
by our Lord's citation to the age of the Jewish war: 
and, at the close of the siege of Jerusalem which 
took place in that war, the temple was destroyed, 
and the Levitical sacrifices were finally abolished, 
- — 3. If we are in doubt respecting the precise im- 
port of any passage, it is useful to compare it with 

$ & other 



( 276 ) 

Other parallel passages, should there be any sueh in 
existence. Now Daniel four times mentions the 
desolating abomination, or (as in one place he va- 
ries the expression) the desolating revolt: and, in 
every instance, it is uniformly connected with the 
taking axvay of the sacrifice *. One of the places, 
in which he mentions it thus connected, is the pre- 
sent prophecy. Two out of the three remaining 
places are thought by many commentators to relate 
to the same event as the desolating abomination of 
the present prophecy most undoubtedly does > 
namely the investing of Jerusalem by the Roman 
armies f. At any rate, one of them must relate to 
the same event %. If then the taking away of the 

* M How long will be the term of the vision of the daily s&~ 
" Crifice and of the revolt that maketh desolate ?• — Yea, it 
" (the he-goat's little horn) magnified itself even against the 
u Prince of the host; and from him the daily sacrifice was 
4< taken away." Dan. viii. 13, 11. 

- And in half a week he shall cause the sacrifice and meat* 
4t offering to cease, for upon the border shall be the abomina- 
!i fcjon that maketh desolate." Dan, ix. '2~. 

il Arms shall stand up, and shall pollute the- sanctuary of 
. strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and shall 
place the abomination that maketh desolate/' Dan. xi. 31. 
I-'. " From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away 
. si by even setting up the abomination that maketh desolate' 
« there shall be computed 1£#0 days/' Dan, xii. 11. 

i Dan. viii. 13, and Dan. xi 6 31« % Dan. xi. 31* 

sacrifice 



( 277 ) 

sacrifice in all these three places, one of them clearly 
of the same import as the place now under consi- 
deration, is so connected with the appearance of the 
desolating abomination, that they must be esteemed 
synchronical ; the taking away of the sacrifice and 
the appearance of the desolating abomination in the 
prophecy of the seventy weeks must by analogy be 
esteemed synchronical likewise, because they are 
connected together precisely in the same manner. 
For, if the taking away of the daily sacrifice and 
the placing of the abomination that maketh desolate 
by the symbolical arm of the Roman empire, in the 
prophecy of the things noted in the Scripture of 
triith # , must relate to the literal abolition of the 
Levitical sacrifices and the sacking of Jerusalem by 
the Romans under Titus : we are surely required, 
by every rule of consistent interpretation, to admit, 
that the causing of the sacrifice and meat-offering 
to cease and the appearance of the desolating abo- 
mination upon the border, in the prophecy of the se- 
venty weeks, must relate to the very same events ; 
inasmuch as the desolating abomination is allowed 
in both instances to be that alluded to by our Lord. 
And, even if this were not the case, whatever might 
be the precise meaning of the desolating abomina- 
tion in the three other passages, since it is plainly in 

* Dr n, x i. 31, 

every 



( 278 ) 

every one of them chronologically connected witk 
the abolition of the sacrifice, analogy compels us to 
consider it also chronologically connected with the 
abolition of the sacrifice in the present passage. To 
myself, I must confess, the matter appears so plain, 
that I cannot refrain from wondering that so 
cool and so judicious a writer as Dr. Prideaux; 
should ever have separated them from each other, 
and should ever have supposed that the causing the 
sacrifice and the meat-offering to cease could mean 
any thing else than the abolition of the temple 
service by Titus, 

I shall conclude with exhibiting together, in one 
point of view, for the convenience of reference, the 
twelve abstract positions which I trust have been 
sufficiently established. 

1. The seventy weeks, mentioned in the 24th 
verse, must be understood as looking prospectively. 

2. Since the seventy weeks are the appointed pe- 
riod to effect six different particulars specified by 
Paniel, their termination must be marked by the 
effecting of some one or more of these particulars. 

3. Though the seventy weeks must terminate 
with some one or more of the particulars specified, 
we are not bound to suppose that all the particulars 
are precisely synchromcaL 

4. Since the seventy weeks are the appointed pe^ 
|ipd upon the holy city, and since they commence 



( 279 ) 

with the edict for the rebuilding of it, they must be 
the times of the holy city, and must therefore syn 
chronize with its duration. 

5. The seven weeks, the sixty and two weeks, and 
the one week, must be estimated as component parts 
of the seventy weeks. 

6. The seventy weeks must be continuous; that is 
to say, the seve?i weeks, the sixty-two weeks, and the 
one week, into which the seventy weeks are subdi- 
vided, must succeed each other in regular chronolo- 
gical order, the two latter of these smaller periods 
commencing exactly where their respective prede- 
cessors terminated. 

7. The holy city at the beginning of the prophecy 
must be the same as the city destined to be rebuilt ; 
and the city destined to be rebuilt must be the same 
as the city which Messiah cuts off from being his by 
divorce. 

8. The Prince that should come (in the 26th 
verse) must be the same person as the Prince the 
Anointed One (in the 25th verse); that is to say, 
they must alike be the Messiah. 

9. The person, who confirms the covenant with 
many and who causes the sacrifice and meat offer- 
ing to cease ; must be the Messiah. 

10. The righteousness of the everlasting ages, 
mentioned in the 24th verse, must be understood of 
a person; and that person must be the Messiah. 

1L The 



( 280 ) 

1 !. The anointing of the Most Holy, mentioned 
in the 24th verse, must relate to the anointing of a 
person; which person must be the Messiah. 

12. The causing of the sacrifice and meat-offering 
to cease must be considered as s}7nchronizing with 
the appearai2ce of the abomination of desolation ; that 
is to say, so far synchronizing, that they are caused 
to cease in the course of the same war that Jerusa-? 
lem is compassed by the Roman armies. 

Now, if I have at all succeeded in establishing 
these positions, no interpretation that contradicts 
anyone of them can be deemed admissible. But 
it is obvious, that each interpretation, which has 
hitherto been considered, however unobjectionable 
it may be in some points, is irreconcileable with 
one or other of the preceding positions. Hence I 
think, that not one of them, as they stand at pre- 
sent, is perfectly tenable. We must inquire there- 
fore, whether any exposition can be produced, 
which quadrates in all respects with such positions 
as may be established abstractedly. 



CHAPTEfl 



{ 381 .) 



CHAPTER VI. 

An inquiry into the proper interpretation of 
the prophecy v 

Having now discussed the mode of computing 
the seventy weeks, the chronology of the different 
edicts from some one of which they must necessa- 
rily be computed, and the abstract mutual relation 
of the different clauses of the prophecy, we shall be 
prepared to investigate with greater advantage the 
proper interpretation of it. 

L. Weeks seventy are the precise period 

UPON THY PEOPLE AND UPON TJIY HOLY CITY, 
TO COMPLETE THE APOSTASY, AND TO PERFECT 
THE SIN-OFFERINGS, AND TO MAKE ATONEMENT 
FOR INIQUITY, AND TO CAUSE him who is THE 
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE ETERNAL AGES TO COME, 
AND TO SEAL THE VISION AND THE PROPHET, 
AND TO ANOINT THE MOST HOLY ONE. 

1 . Since it is a priori uncertain from which of the 
edicts of the kings of Persia the seventy weeks are 
to be reckoned^ since however they are to be reckon* 

ed 



( , im ) 

ed prospectively*, since they must terminate with 
some one or more of the particulars here specified 
to be accomplished f, and since they must be es- 
teemed an unbroken continuous period of time J ; 
it is manifest, that, if we can ascertain the particu- 
lar with which they terminate, we shall thereby as- 
certain the proper date of their commencement : and, 
if that can be ascertained, we shall then tread upon 
sure ground, and shall have the key given us to in- 
terpret all the subordinate parts of the prophecy. 
Our first business therefore must be to inquire into 
the meaning of the siv particulars here specified by 
Daniel, as destined to be accomplished in the course 
oitke seventy weejcs. 

(1.) The first of them is, the completion of the 
apostasy. 

The import of the word yt#£3 has already been 
shewn to be the revolt of a subject from the allegi- 
ance due to his lawful sovereign, Hence, in a theo- 
logical sense, particularly in the case of a theocracy 
such as the government of Israel was, it is equiva- 
lent to apostasy in a more or less intense degree. 
All the acts of idolatry, into which the Ifraelites 
were seduced, were so many acts of rebellious apos- 
tasy from their heavenly sovereign. Each of them 

* According to the 1st abstract position, 
f According to the 2d abstract position. 
% According to the 6th abstract position* 

was 



( 283 ) 

-was a revolt, in a far more special and definite man- 
ner than the idolatrous acts of the Gentiles; be- 
cause God was king in Israel *; and therefore each 
act of idolatry was a denial of his supremacy, an 
jafet whereby his liege-nien withdrew their allegiance 
and transferred it to another. Yet, bad as this 
senseless idolatry of the ancient Israelites may have 
been, their apostasy cannot be said to have been 
Completed by any one particular act of it. More- 
over the seventy xaeeks look prospectively ; therefore 
their apostasy cannot have been completed before 
the time of Daniel. But we know, that after their 
restoration from Babylon, they never, at least na- 
tionally, relapsed into idolatry : yet, since the seventy 
weeks look prospectively, their apostasy must have 
been completed subsequent to that restoration. It 
must therefore be some withdrawing of their allegi- 
-ance, palpable and atrocious no doubt to the very 
highest degree since it was to be an absolute con~ 
summation of all their former apostasies, yet of a 
different nature from any former act of rebellious 
idolatry, inasmuch as they were never after their re- 
storation from Babylon nationally idolatrous. Now 
I know not any act perpetrated by the Jews subse- 
quent to the* time of Daniel, that can vindicate to 



* 1 Sam. viiu 7, xii. Isaiah x!i. ^1, xliii, 15. Jer. 
viii. 19. 

itself 



( 284 ) 

itself the tremendous preeminence of being a am- 
summation of apostasy , except ther formal rejection 
and judicial murder of their divine king when he 
dwelt among them veiling his majesty in a tabernacle 
of flesh. " Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion," 
exclaims an inspired prophet, " shout, O daughter 
" of Jerusalem : behold, thy king cometh unto 
ct thee ; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and 
a riding upon an ass*." Such was the title of the 
Messiah t a title, which he claimed as his due even 
in the very face of his enemies; a title, the claim- 
ing of which subjected him to the bitterest taunts f. 
But in what manner did the Jews receive their 
king? When Pilate scoffingly says to them, Behold 
your h'wg.%; their answer is, Away with him, cru- 
cify him. The governor inquires, What shall I 
crucify your king ? the chief priests solemnly re- 
ply, as the representatives of their nation, We have 
no king but Cesar Is it possible to conceive a 
more palpable and deliberate withdrawing of allegi- 
ance from a sovereign, than this was ? In their dif- 
ferent acts of idolatry they seem for the most part; 
not so much to have altogether rejected their king, 



* Zecliar. ix. 9. 
f See Matt, xxvii. 11, 
Luke xxiii. 2, 3, 3/. 
^ John xix, 14, 



Mark xv. 2, 9, 12, 18, 32, 
§ John xix. 15. 

as 



( 285 ) 

as to have worshipped false gods in co?ijuncti6n with 
him : but here we have the very consummation of 
apostasy, the very completion of revolt. Nor is 
their revolt confined to mere words, to bare expres- 
sions of defiance. To strike an earthly sovereign has 
ever been esteemed one of the greatest outrages, 
against majesty ; and the records of the whole world 
afford but very few instances of a king being put to 
death, with all the formality of legal mockery, by hi» 
rebellious subjects. But, in the case of the divine 
sovereign of Israel, blows were added to insult, and 
murder to blows. His claim of royalty exposed him 
to derision : he was crowned with thorns, and greet- 
ed with Hail! king of the Jews. His regal title 
was contemptuously nailed upon his cross: and, 
even while he was expiring in the midst of unuttera- 
ble torments, the chief priests and scribes and el- 
ders, true to their purpose, insulted him to the last 
with express reference to this very title : " He saved 
" others : himself he cannot save: if he be the king 
" of Israel, let him now come down from the cross ? 
ff and we will believe him : he trusted in God ? let him 
,l £ deliver him now if he will have him ; for he said, 
" I am the Son of God*." If the whole of this 
awful transaction be not the completion of remit 

* Matt, xxvii. 42, 43, 

foretohj 



( 286 ) 

foretold by Daniel, it is difficult to conceive what 
else Can have been intended by the Holy Spirit *. 

The second particular is the perfecting of th$ 
sin-offerings. 

All the offerings for sir! under the Levitical disperw 
sation were merely typical of the one great sin-- 
offering of the Lamb of God. They were imperfect 
Shadows of the true expiatory sacrifice, and possess^ 
ed no inherent virtue or intrinsic merit. The only 
perfect and effectual sin-offering was the Messiah, 
who was appointed in the councils of God for this 
very purpose from the foundation of the world. 
When he came and devoted himself a willing victim 
to death, the shadowy sacrifices under the Law 
were perfected, and their intent was at once fully 
explained and accomplished. The author of the 
epistle to the Hebrews affords us the best commen- 
tary on this particular. " There is verily," says he, 
" a disannulling of the commandment going before 
"for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 
" For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bring- 
" ing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw 
" nigh unto God.— They truly were many priests, 
P because they were not suffered to continue by rea- 

* The climax of the revolt^ from its. first breaking out to it* 
Completion, is accurately described by our Lord himself in the 
parable of the householder and the vineyard. See Matt. xxi. 

" son 



( 287 ) 

* son of death : but this man, because he continueth 
" ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. — Who 
" needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer 
" up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for 
" the people s ; for this he did once, when he offer- 
H ed up himself. — The priests went always into the 
" first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of 
" God : but into the second went the high-priest 
" alone once every year, not without blood, which 
" he offered for himself and for the errors of the 
" people. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the 
c( way into the holiest of all was not yet made mani- 
" fest^ while as the first tabernacle was yet 
" standing : which was a figure for the time then 
" present, in which were offered both gifts and sa- 
" crifices, that could not make him that did the ser- 
" "vice perfect as pertaining to the conscience ; which 
" stood only in meats and drinks, and divers wash- 
" ings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them 
H until the time of reformation. But Christ being 
" come, an high-priest of good things to come, by 
" a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not mad$ 
" with hands, that is to say, not of this building ; 
" neither by the blood of bulls and calves, but by 
" his own blood, he entered in once into the holy 
" place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 
" For, if the blood of bulls and of goats, and th$ 
" ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sancti- 
1 " fieth 



( 288 ) 

" fieth to the purifying of the flesh j how much 
u more shall the blood of Christ, who through the 
" eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
" purge your consciences from dead works to serve 
" the living God ? — Almost all things are by the 
Law purged with blood; and without shedding 
" of blood there is no remission. It was therefore 
" necessary, that the patterns of things in the hea- 
" vens should be purified with these ; but the hea- 
" venly things themselves, with better sacrifices 
" than these. For Christ is not entered into the 
" holy places made with hands, which are the 
u figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to 
" appear in the presence of God for us. Nor yet 
" that he should offer himself often, as the high- 
" priest entereth into the holy place every year with. 
" blood of others : for then must he often have suf- 
" fered since the foundation of the world : but now 
" once in the end of the world hath he appeared to 
" put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And, as 
" it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this 
" the judgment : so Christ was once offered to bear 
w the sins of many ; and unto them that look for 
" him shall he appear the second time without sin 
sc unto salvation. For the Law, having a shadow 
" of good things to come and not the very image of 
" the things, can never with those sacrifices which 
ie they offered year by year continually make the 

u comers 



( £89 ) 

" comers thereunto perfect. For then, would they 

" not have ceased to be offered ? because that the 

" worshippers once purged should have had no 

" more conscience of sins. But ia those sacrifices 

" there is a remembrance again made of sins every 

" year. For it is not possible, that the blood of 

" bulls and of goats should take away sins. Where- 

" fore, when he cometh into the world, he saith 3 

" Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a 

" body hast thou prepared me; in burnt offerings 

4 and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure; 

4 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the 

" book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God, 

" Above, when he said, Sacrifice and offering and 

cc burnt offerings and offerings for sin thou wouldest 

" not, neither hadst pleasure therein (which are 

" offered by the Law) ; then said he, Lo, I come to 

M do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first 

<l that he may establish the second, By the which 

" will we are sanctified through the offering of the 

" body of Jesus Christ once for all And every 

* priest standeth daily ministering and offering 

" oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never 

" take away sins : but this man, after he had offer- 

" ed one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the 

" right hand of God — For by one offering he hath 

<c perfected for ever them that are sanctified — Now, 

" where remission of sins is, there is no more offer- 

¥ " mg 



( £90 ) 

a ing for sin*." On this account it is said, that 
a Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to 
" every one that believeth -|\" In him all the typi- 
cal sacrifices under the Law were perfected ; and to 
him, as its completion, the whole scheme of the Le- 
vitical dispensation referred. The Jews themselves 
indeed seem to have had an idea, that the sin-offer- 
ings would be perfected by the Messiah : Mai- 
monides at least, in his treatise on the red heifer, 
mentions a curious tradition, which seems to involve 
some such idea, inasmuch as it represents the Mes- 
siah as completing an ordinance originally instituted 
under Moses. cc Nine red heifers," says he, 
" have been sacrificed between the first delivering 
<£ of this precept and the desolation of the second 
" temple. Our master Moses sacrificed the first; 
" Ezra offered up the second ; and seven more were 
u slain during the period which elapsed from the 
" time of Ezra to the destruction of the temple. The 
" tenth king Messiah himself will sacrifice. By his 
" speedy manifestation he will cause great joy. 
*f Amen: may he come quickly 

(3.) The third particular is the making atonement 
for iniquity . 

* Beb. vii. 3 8, 19, 23, 24, 27- i*i 6—1 4, 22—28. x. 1— 
%2, 14, 18. 

f Rum. x. 4. + Maitnon* .de yacca rufa. c. iii. p. 34r. 

This 



( £91 ) 

This must relate to the true atonement made by 
the alone meritorious sacrifice of the Lamb of God. 
To the typical atonement it cannot relate ; because 
the making of that was no way peculiar to the period 
of the seventy weeks. The typical atonement had 
equally been made, long before the commencement 
of the seventy weeks, from the days of Moses, not to 
say from the fall itself. This making of atonement 
for iniquity therefore must be something peculiar to 
the seventy weeks; something, that had never oc- 
curred before, and now for the first time takes place 
within the period of the seventy weeks, that is to say, 
either during their lapse or at their expiration. But 
to such a description the atonement made by Christ 
himself will alone be found to answer, and will alone 
be found to correspond with the dignity of the pro- 
phecy. Hence, the ministry of the Gospel is styled 
the ministry of reconciliation ; and the Gospel itself, 
the zvord of reconciliation. Hence it is said, that 
God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ * 
And hence the Messiah is described as being " a 
" merciful and faithful high-priest in things per- 
" taining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins 
" of the people f In short, the whole of this mys- 
terious transaction, of which the various reconcilia- 
tions under the Law were only types, is thus amply se$ 



* 2 Cor. v. 1&— 21. t Heb.ii. 17. 

v 2 forth 



C 292 ) 

forth by the Apostle as accomplished under the 
Gospel. " When we were yet without strength, in 
" due time Christ died for the ungodly. For 
" scarcely for a righteous man will one die : yet 
€% peradventure for a good man some would even 
'* dare to die. Bu't God commendeth his love to- 
" wards us, in that while we were yet sinners 
c - Christ died for us. Much more then, being now 
" justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
" wrath through him. For, if when we were ene- 
" mies zee were reconciled to God by the death of 
" his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be' 
" saved by his life. And not only so, but we also 
" joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
" whom we have now received the atonement* . 

(4.) The fourth particular is to cause him mho i$ 
the righteousness of the everlasting ages to come. 

That by this righ teousness is meant a person, even 
Messiah the prince that should come, has already 
been shewn :|% I apprehend, that his coming here 
spoken of specially means his ministerial coming: 
because, when Daniel afterwards descends to parti- 
culars, we are told, that unto the Jlfessiah, by which 
I think wc can only understand unto his coming, 
there shall be weeks seven and- weeks sixty and 
tzvo. 



* Bom, v, '6> f According to ike 10th abstract position 



( £93 ) 

(5.) The fifth particular is the sealing of the 
sion and the prophet. 

In this expression there is a considerable degree 
of obscurity, arising from the various senses in which 
the verb to seal is used in Scripture. 1. Daniel 
employs it to describe the unintelligibleness or a 
prophecy on account of its not having yet received 
its accomplishment *. 2. Isaiah uses it to describe 
the same unintelligibleness of a vision though arising 
from a different cause, the spiritual stupidity of those 
who might have understood it f . 3. St. John and 
St. Paul use it to describe a formal authentication 
or acknowledgment : and the first of these apostles 
directly applies it to God's authentication of the mi- 
nistry of Christ J. 4. Nehemiah and Jeremiah use 
it in the sense of ratifying any thing or making it 
sure §. 5. The Jews themselves employ it to de- 

* Dan. xii. 9. See also Rev. v. vi. 

+ Isaian xxix. 9 — IS. It is probably used in the same sense 
in Isaiah viii. l6\ where, instead of seal the law among my disci- 
pies, the lxx read they that seal the law so that they understand it 
not. Bp. Chandler thinks that they read idVd that it be not un- 
derstood, and approves this reading. See Bp. Lowth's Isaiah in 
loc. Such is the turn also St. Jerome gives it : Certe lex£t 
" prophctia usque ad Johannem ligctur apud eos= et clausa sit 
li atque signata: ut, quod legunt, non intelligant." Comment, 
in loc. 

% 2 Tim. ii. 19—2 Cor. i. 22.— Eph. i. 13. iv. 30— John 
vi. 27 — Rev. ix. 4. 

§ Nehem. ix, 35 — Jerem. xxxii. 44. 

note 



( m ) 

pote the finishing or completion of a work, a meta* 
phor evidently borrowed from the sealing of a letter, 
because the sealing of it is a proof that it is finish- 
ed* : but J cannot find, that it is used in this sense 
by any of the inspired writers, unless perhaps by the 
author of the book of Job f . Yet such is the mean- 
ing that Aquiia J, the Vulgate and the Syriac ||, 
ascribe to it. This interpretation however is some- 
what ambiguous, and may be differently understood, 
The finishing or completion of the vision and the pro- 
phet may either mean the accomplishment of the 
grand scheme of prophecy, and especially of this par- 
ticular vision, in the person of Christ ; or it may 
mean the finishing of the prophetic cation with Ma- 
lachi, which took place in the course of the seventy 
weeks. The former of these opinions has been 
adopted by Africanus, Cornelius a Lapide, Sir Isaac 

* " Perficere, sive reipsa complere, yel ultimam rqanum im~ 
" ponere, ad finem perducere, concludere: ut v. g. Judaei hodje 
" dicunt, tot yel tot annos transiisse liD^D np'nn^ a complete, 
sive absolute, Talmud.*' Pol. Syn. in loc. 

t Job ix. 7. xxxiii. 16. To the former of these passages the 
Bp. of Kilialla gives a turn which renders the word incapable 
of bearing the sense of completing; and in the latter it is ex-» 
tremely doubtful whether such be its import. 

§ Impleatur visio et prophetia. 
|j Compleantur visio et prophetew 

Newton 



( 295 ) 

Newton, Dr. Prideaux, and others : whether the 
latter has ever been preferred, I know not * 

In making our selection then among the different 
meanings which the verb to seal may be supposed to 
have, that, which naturally occurs the first, is the un- 
intelligibleness of the prophecy until it should have 
received its accomplishment : and this interpretation 
is the more specious, because the verb is certainly 
used elsewhere in that very sense by Daniel him- 
self f . Accordingly, it has been adopted by some 
commentators : but I greatly doubt, nevertheless, 
whether it be tenable. A vision maybe so sealed; 
but it is hard to conceive, how a prophet can : and 
the original word signifies a prophet, not a prophecy, 
as our translators have rendered it. Besides, the 
vision of the seventy weeks would be unintelligible, 
not merely during the lapse of those seventy weeks 
(to which the unintelligibleness of the prophecy 
musty according to this interpretation, be limited) ; 
but from the very time of its being delivered (which 
was prior to the earliest possible date of the seventy 
weeks according to any a priori conjecture, namely 
the first year of Cyrus), to at least the termination 

* As far as I can collect from Pole's Synopsis, Glassius 
seems to have had some such idea ; but his meaning is not ex- 
pressed very clearly. 

-j- Dan, xii. 9, 



( 296 ) 

of the Jewish war (which, if the seventy weeks be 
continuous, must necessarily be posterior to them 
from whatever era they are reckoned # ), not to say 
to the final overthrow of the Roman empire at the 
close of the 1260 years |— The next meaning of the 
verb, which might possibly occur, is that, which the 
Jews and some of the ancient versions ascribe to it ; 
namely, the completion or finishing of the vision. 
This I should not be unwilling to adopt in either of 
its modifications, if we had more satisfactory proof 
that the verb ever bore such a sense in Scripture: 
for, since, the seventy weeks are to bring both the 
coming and the death of the Messiah, they might 
well be said likewise to bring the accomplishment of 
all the visions arid of all the prophets^; or, since 
the prophetic canon under the Law closed with Ma- 
lachi, they might equally be said to bring on the 
finishing of it. But, when the word can be inter- 
preted in a perfectly unobjectionable manner agree- 
ably to Scripture, I think it the most adviseable to 

* The chronological untcnablencss of the hypothesis of Sca- 
Ijger and Mr, Mede, which would make them end with the 
sacking of Jerusalem, has already been shewn. 

f That the prophecy extends to the close of this famous pe^ 
X\Q% will be shewn hereafter in the present chapter § VI. 3. 

I <f Omnium prophetarum scopus est Christus ; hinc in 

Talmud sic scribunt, Omnes prophetce vaiicinati sunt de diebus 

Mpsm 9 " Pol, Synop f in loc, 

adopt 



( 297 ) 

adopt such an interpretation — I conceive therefore, 
that the sealing of the "vision and the prophet signi- 
fies the authentication both of this numerical vision^ 
and of all the other descriptive visions of the Old 
Testament, by their exact completion in the person of 
Christ ; on the one hand ; and the authentication of 
the great prophet, both by his perfectly fulfilling 
every vision respecting him, and by the miraculous 
attestation of his heavenly father to his divine com- 
mission, on the other hand *. This seems to me the 
most natural and unobjectionable interpretation of 
the clause : and, in this sense, the vision and the 
prophet were manifestly sealed in the course of the 
seventy weeks. 

(().) The last particular is the anointing of the 
Most Holy One, 

Under the Levitical dispensation, kings, priests, 
and prophets, were alike inaugurated into their re- 
spective offices by the ceremony of anointing *j\ 
Now, since our Lord is at once our king, our priest, 
and our prophet, he is figuratively said, in allusion 
to the ceremony under the Law, to have been 
anointed also at his inauguration into office. His 

* Matt. iii. 16, 17- xvii. 5— Mark i. 10, 11. ix. 7— Luke i\ 
ji. iii. 21, 22 — John i. 31. xii. 28, 29, 30— Luke xxiv. 25, 26, 
27— Heb. i— 1 Peter i. 10, 11, 12—2 Peter i. 16—21. 

t- Levit. yiii, 30-— 1 Kings xix, 16— 2 Sam, ii. 4. 

types 

i 



( 298 ) 

types were anointed only with consecrated oil : but 
God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with 
power*. It seems most natural to suppose, that 
the spiritual ceremony of his unction ought to be 
considered as bavin : been performed at his bap- 
tism. He possessed indeed the Spirit from his very 
birth\ ; and he was bom a king J, and a prophet § : 
but his solemn inauguration into his triple office 
took place at his baptism, when the Holy Ghost de- 
scended upon him in a bodily shape like a dove, 
and when a voice from heaven proclaimed him to be 
the beloved Son of God in whom he is well 
pleased j|. It was then that he was anointed with the 
Holy Ghost and with power. Previous to his bap- 
tism he performed no miracles: but immediately 
after it we find him manifesting forth his glory by 
the changing of water into wine % Previous to his 
baptism he led a retired life of meditation and de- 
votion : but immediately after it he began to act 
under his spiritual commission both of prophet, 
priest, and king**. As a prophet, he publicly ap- 
plied to himself those words of Isaiah, " The Spirit 

* Acts x. 38. f Luke i. 35. X Matt. ii. 2. 

§ Luke ii. 30, 31,32. )| Luke iii. 21, 22, 1f John ii. 11. 

** Bp. Kidder thinks, that our Lord was twice anointed, 
first at his conception, and secondly at his baptism. It seems 
liowevcr most natural to ascribe his unction to the latter alone. 
Demons, of the Messiah, part I, chap. i. p. 11. 

" of 



( 299 ) 

" of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anoint- 
" ed me to preach the Gospel to the poor: he hath 
" sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach 
ie deliverance to the captives and recovering of 
u - sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are 
f£ bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the 
" Lord*." As a priest, zealous for the honour of 
God and the purity of his worship, he authori- 
tatively drove out of the temple those that profaned 
its courts by secular traffic, charging them not to 
make his father's house a house of merchandise f. 
And, as a king, he exercised supreme power both 
over the inanimate creation, the most inveterate dis- 
eases, and the evil spirits of darkness : insomuch 
that the multitude, astonished at what they saw, 
and fully acknowledging the justice of his claims to 
royalty, would, upon one occasion, have even taken 
him by force to make him a king J. 

£. We have now considered the six particulars 
destined to be accomplished within the period of the 
seventy weeks. With some one or more of them these 
seventy weeks must necessarily terminate §: and 
they must plainly terminate with such as in point of 
chronology are the latest. Now the fourth parti- 
cular, the causing of the eternal righteousness to 

* Luke iv. 13, 19. f John ii. 13—17. % John vi. 15, 
J According to the 2d abstract position. 

come } 



( 300 ) ' 

come, relates to the advent of Christ, and specially, 
I think, to his ministerial advent. The sixth parti- 
cular, the anointing of the Most High One, and the 
commencement at least of the fifth particular, the 
sealing of the vision and the prophet, synchronize 
with the baptism of Christ. While the three first 
particulars, the completion of the apostasy, the per- 
fecting of the sin-offerings, and the making atone*- 
mentfor iniquity, were all accomplished at the cru- 
cifixion. Hence it is manifest, that these three syn- 
chronical particulars are the latest in point of chro- 
nology, being posterior in their fulfilment to the 
other three. It will follow therefore, that the se- 
venty weeks must expire with the fulfilment of 
them : that is to say, the seventy weeks must expire 
with the crucifixion. It is further manifest, that 
the seventy xvceks cannot expire with the siege of Je- 
rusalem, as some commentators have imagined : for 
not the least hint is given in any one of the six par- 
ticulars, that the siege of Jerusalem is included 
within the seventy weeks. But we can scarcely sup- 
pose that so very striking an event would have been 
omitted in the enumeration, had it been included 
within the seventy weeks ; more especially since, if 
it be included, it must mark their termination. Had 
it been the design of the Holy Spirit to connect the 
siege of Jerusalem with the seventy weeks, he would 
surely have added two more particulars to the six 

which 



( 301. ) 

which are at present specified; he would surely 
have subjoined, and to cause the sacrifice and meat- 
offering to cease, and to bring upon the border the 
abomination of desolation. He is however totally si- 
lent upon this point ; and teaches us, that the se- 
venty weeks are the precise period to effect no more 
than site particulars, not one of which can be con- 
strued to have the least relation to the siep;e. It is 

o 

plain therefore that the seventy weeks must end with 
the latest of these six particulars. But the three, 
which are jointly the latest, synchronize with the 
crucifixion. Consequently, the seventy weeks must 
terminate with the crucijivion. 

Having thus ascertained their expiration, -we 
must reckon back 490 years in order to arrive at 
their commencement. Now the crucifixion took 
place in the year 33 of the vulgar Christian era or » 
the year 4746 of the Julian period, and at the time 
of the Passover which was always celebrated in the 
middle of the month Nisan. If from this era we 
reckon back 490 years, we shall be brought to the 
corresponding month Nisan in the year 458 before* 
the Christian era or the year 4256 of the Julian 
period. But, in that very month of that very year 
Ezra received his commission to carry into effect the 
decree enacted by Artaxerxes Longiinanns in the 
seventh year of his reign *. Hence it will follow, » 

* Sue the chronological table at the end of Chap. ii. 

since 



'( 303 ) 

since the 490 years of the seventy weeks were thus 
accomplished even to a month at the time of the 
crucifixion, that the decree, from which they are to 
be calculated, must be the decree enacted by Artax- 
erxes Longimanus in the seventh year of his reign. 

3. Here however the question will occur, How is 
this arrangement consistent with the seventy weeks 
being the times of the holy city*? Jerusalem began 
to be rebuilt from the first year of. Cyrus, which 
considerably preceded the seventh year of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, my supposed commencement of the 
seventy weeks; and was not destroyed until the 
year of our Lord 70, which considerably succeeded 
the era of the crucifixion. Therefore, according to 
the arrangement here proposed, the seventy weeks 
are plainly not the times of the holy city. 

(1.) It is readily allowed that such is the case, if 
by the holy city we understand the literal Jerusalem. 
But I argue from this very circumstance, that the 
literal Jerusalem is not here intended. Since the 
seventy weeks certainly are the ti mes of the holy city, 
and since the times of the literal Jerusalem are 605 
years extending from the commencement of its re- 
building in the first year of Cyrus in the year A. C. 
536 to its second demolition by the Romans in the 
year of our Lord 70 ; it will follow, that the holy 



* According to the. 4th abstract position. 



( 303 ) 

city, the times of which are limited to 490 years* 
cannot be the literal city of Jerusalem. 

(2.) In order to establish this position, we must 
compare the prophecy with the edict. Now the 
prophecy teaches us, that we are to compute the se- 
venty zveeks from the going forth of an edict to re- 
build Jerusalem ; and it moreover teaches us to in- 
fer, that those seventy weeks expire with the chrono-* 
logically latest of the six specified particulars *< 
Such being the case, they must inevitably expire 
with the crucifixion : and must therefore inevitably 
be reckoned from the going forth of the edict in the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes. Consequently, the 
edict to rebuild Jerusalem alluded to in the prophecy \ 
must be the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes: 
and the city in the prophecy destined to be rebuilt | 
must be the city the rebuilding of which is the sub~ 
ject of that edict. 

The words of the prophecy are : " Know r and 
" understand, from the going forth of an edict to 
" rebuild Jerusalem unto the Anointed One the 
u Prince shall be weeks seven and weeks sixty and 
" two; it shall be rebuilt, with perpetual increase 
" and firm decision, even in the short space of the 
" times." 

The words of the edict are : " Artaxerxes, king 
" of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law 



* According to the 2d abstract position. 

" of 



( 304 ) . 

of tlie God of heaven, perfect peace, and at sucli 
" a time. I make a decree, that all they of the 
" people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites in 
" my realm, which are minded of their own free 
" will to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. For- 
" asmuch as thou art sent of the king and of his 
" seven counsellors, to inquire concerning Judah 
" and Jerusalem, according to the Law of thy God 
" which is in thine hand ; and to carry the silver 
" and gold which the kins; and his counsellors have 
<e freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habi- 
" tation is in Jerusalem, and all the silver and gold 
" that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, 
" with the free-will offering of the people and of the 
" priests, offering willingly for the house of their 
" God which is in Jerusalem : that thou mayest 
u buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, 
6i lambs, with their meat-offerings and their drink- 
" offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the 
" house of your God which is in Jerusalem. And, 
" whatsoever shall seem good to thee and to thy 
" brethren to do with the rest of the silver and the 
" gold, that do after the will of your God. The 
" vessels also that are given thee for the service of 
" the house of thy God, those deliver thou before 
" the God of Jerusalem. And whatsoever more 
" shall be needful for the house of thy God, which 
M thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out 
5 " of 



( 305 ) 

" of the king's treasure-house. I, even I, Artax* 
" erxes the king, do make a decree to all the trea- 
" surers which are beyond the river, that whatso- 
M ever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the> 
" God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done 
" speedily ; unto an hundred talents of silver, and 
<e to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an 
" hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths 
" of oil, and salt without prescribing bow much* 
" Whatsoever is commanded by the God of hea- 
" ven, let it be diligently done for the house of the 
u God of heaven : for why should there be wrath 
" against the realm of the king and his song ? Also 
" we certify you, that, touching any of the priests 
" and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinim, or mi- 
u nisters of this house of God, it shall not be law- 
" ful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them. 
" And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God 
" that is in thine hand, set magistrates, and judges, 
" which may judge all the people that are beyond 
" the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; 
" and teach ye them that know them not. And 
" whosoever will not do the Law T of thy God and 
" the Law of the king, let judgment be executed 
" speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or 
" to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to 
" imprisonment." 

X Now- 



( 306' y 

Now it is manifest, that in this edict there is not 
a word said respecting the reedification of the lite- 
ral city of Jerusalem. That had begun to be re- 
built in the first year of Cyrus : and, as for the 
temple, it had been finished in the sixth year of 
Darkis ■*. As yet however neither the ecclesiastical 
nor the civil polity of Judah had regularly been re- 
established. Their full reestablish ment therefore is 
the subject of the present edict. By virtue of it 
Ezra was empowered to restore the observance of 
the Law of Moses both in church and state, tQ settle 
anew the temple service, to appoint magistrates and 
judges to govern the people, and to punish all such 
as should be disobedient to them according as their 
crimes deserved. Through his care, moreover, a 
correct edition of the holy Scriptures was set forth ; 
the different books, of which they were composed, 
were collected together and properly arranged ; and 
the sacred canon was fixed and settled. Whatever 
assistance he mkht have in this arduous and labo- 
rious undertaking, " the whole conduct of the 
Ci work, and the glory of accomplishing it, is by the 
u Jews chiefly attributed to him, under whose pre- 
" sidency, they tell us, it was done f." In short,, 
from his being the great regenerator and restorer of 



* Ezra vi. 15, 

| ferideaux*s Connection. Part i. b. v. p. 333. 



their 



( 307 ) 

their nation both ecclesiastically and civilly, " they 
x< look on him as another Moses % For, the Law? 
u they say, was given by Moses, but it was revived 
" and restored by Ezra? after it had in a maimer 
C£ been extinguished and lost in the Babylonish cap* 
" tivity i and therefore they reckon him as the se- 
u cond founder of it. And it is a common opinion 
i( among them, that he was Malachi the prophet 
" that he was called Ezra as his proper name, and 
u Malacld (which signifies an angel or messenger) 
" from his office ; because he was sent, as the angel 
" and messenger of God, to restore again the Jew- 
u ish religion, and establish it in the same manner 
" as it was before the captivity, on the foundation 
" of the Law and the prophets. And indeed, by 
" virtue of that ample commission which he had 
" from king Artaxerxes, he had an opportunity of 
" doing more herein than any other of his nation i 
" and he executed all the powers thereof to the ut- 
" most he was able, for the resettling both of the 
" ecclesiastical and political state of the Jews, in 
1? the best posture they were then capable of: and 
" from hence his name is in so high esteem and 
&c veneration among the Jews, that it is a common 

. * Buxtorf. Tibcriad. c. 10. 

t Abraham Zacutus in Juchasin. David Ganz. Cbald. Pa« 
raph. in Malach. Buxtorf. Tiberiad. c. 3* 

x % li saying 



( 308 } 

" saying among their writers, that, if the Law had 
u not been given by Moses, Ezra was xvorthy by 
" whom it should have been given # ." 

The edict then of Artaxerxes relates, not to the 
rebuilding of the literal Jerusalem, but to the re- 
establishment of the Levitical polity ecclesiastical 
and civil in communion with God. The holy city 
hoxvever mentioned in the prophecy must be the holy 
city the rebuilding of which is the subject of this 
edict ; because this edict is necessarily the edict al- 
luded to in the prophecy, inasmuch as it was enact- 
ed precisely 490 years before the expiration of the 
seventy weeks at the crucifixion. Therefore the holy 
city in the prophecy must be a figurative holy city, 
namely the Levitical polity so long as it continued 
holy unto God ; because no other city is mentioned^ 
as being rebuilt, in the decree of Artaxerxes. And 
this interpretation of the holy city in the prophecy. 
to which we are led by the words of the decree, 
exactly accords with the period which is represent- 
ed as being the times of the holy city. Seventy 
weeks are said to be the precise period upon it and 
upon Daniel's people. But upon the literal Jeru- 
salem and Jewish nation seventy weeks were not the 
precise period ; because 605 years elapsed between 
the commencement of the rebuilding of Jerusalem 

* PriJeaux's Connect* Part i. i, p. 333, 334. 



( 30.9 ) 

and of the restoration of Judah, and the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the breaking of Judah as a nation. 
Whereas, if we interpret the holy city and the peo- 
ple agreeably to the tenor of the edict which was 
passed exactly 490 years before the crucifixion, we 
shall find that their appointed period was precisely 
seventy weeks of years, For just so long was the 
Levitical Church, after its restitution by Ezra, a 
city holy unto God ; and just so long was the po- 
lity of Judah a theocracy. From that time, having 
completed their apostasy, and having finally reject- 
ed their divine ruler, the Jews ceased to be the pe- 
culiar people of God : and, instead of the Levitical 
Church, the Christian Church became his holy city. 
Such accordingly is the name bestowed upon it by 
St* John in the Apocalypse *; 

(3.) This 

* Rev. xi. 2. Mr. Marshall fully allows, that the seventy 
weeks are the times of the holy city : but, insisting upon it that 
the holy city means the literal Jerusalem, he thence takes occa- 
sion to say, that the interpretation of Dr. Prideaux, which in 
this particular I have followed, does not make the seventy weeks 
the times ©f the holy city, because it does not include within 
them the destruction of Jerusalem. This is most true, accord- 
ing to the sense in which Mr* Marshall understands the holy 
city ; but not so, according to that in which the Dean and my* 
self understand it. So far from it indeed, that I will venture 
to say, that the present exposition is the only one which does 
make the seventy weeks the times of the holy city. It is not a 
little singular, that Mr. Marshall should claim this praise for 



( 310 ) 

(3.) This interpretation is required, not only by 
the tenor of the edict and by the specified times of 
the holy city which are limited to 490 years, but 
likewise by the context of the prophecy itself. 
Wherever the city is mentioned in the prophecy, 
the holy city, spoken of at the beginning of it, must 
be intended*. The city therefore, which Messiah 
cuts off b\j divorce, must be the city destined to be 
rebuilt ; and the city, destined to be rebuilt, must 
be the holy city. But the city, which jMessiah di- 
vorces from being his mystical consort, must plainly 

jus o:vn system, when it so palpably fails of answering to the 
particular in question. He quite forget?, that (/// the period, 
which elapses between his supposed termination of the sixty 
nine 5&edbs i^)d his supposed commencement of the seventieth 
lark, is equally the times of the literal Jerusalem as any part 
of the setenty ~weeks ; for, during the whole of this intervening 
space, the city was standing. According to his hypothesis 
therefore, so far from 4p0 years (let him reckon those years as 
he pleases) being the times of the literal Jerusalem after its rc- 
* Jilication, its times amounted to no less than 514 years, even 
conceding to Mr. Marshall (what he has not proved) that it 
did not begin to be rebuilt until the twentieth year of Artax- 
efxes. In reality, it is utterly impossible to make 4^0 years 
the times of any other holy city than a figurative one : but of 
the figurative holy city, the Levitical church in communion zvith 
God, from its reestabUslunent by Ezra to its ceasing to be the 
holy city by finally rejecting and crucifying the Messiah, 41)0 
years are exactly the times. See Marshall's Treatise on the 
seventy weeks, p. 20/, 

* According to the fth abstract position. 



( 311 ) 

be the Levitical church and polity ; not the mere 
stones, timber, and mortar, of which the literal Je- 
rusalem was composed. Therefore the holy city, 
and the city destined to be rebuilt, must also be the 
Levitical Church and polity. The same conclu- 
sion may, I think, he drawn from the context of 
Daniels prayer which introduces the prophecy. 
When he confesses the transgressions of Israel, as 
having called down the great judgments which had 
fallen upon the nation; when he laments the rebel- 
lions of his people^ as having occasioned the entire 
dissolution of their polity; when he beseeches God 
that his anger and fury may be turned away from 
his city Jerusalem and his holy mountain, acknow- 
ledging that for the national iniquities Jerusalem and 
his people are become a reproach to all that are 
about them ; when lie prays to God, that he would 
.cause his face to shine upon his desolate sanctuary 
arid to look upon the city which is called by his 
eame ; and when he afterwards describes himself as 
having been confessing his sin and the sin of his 
people Israel, and as having been presenting his 
supplication before the Lord his God for the holy 
mountain of his God : it is scarcely possible to 
doubt, that he was lamenting the alienation and 
captivity of his people on account of their spiritual 
rebellions, that he was bewailing the dissolution of 
the Levitical church and state, and that he was 

2 P ra jing 



\ 



( 312 ) 

praying unto God for their speedy- resettlement* 
Except as immediately connected with these great 
points, the desolation of the mere literal walls and 
houses of Jerusalem would scarcely have been made 
a subject of solemn prayer to God by such a truly 
spiritual believer as Daniel. 

(4.) It is however a safe and obvious method of 
establishing the meaning of a passage which is in 
any degree ambiguous, to compare it with other 
parallel passages respecting the import of which 
there can be no dispute. One restoration of Judah 
is past : but another is as yet future. It may be 
useful therefore, for the settling the right interpre- 
tation of the present passage, to inquire whether 
the prophets use any phraseology to depict the fu- 
ture r establishment of Judah similar to that, which 
I conceive Daniel here to use for the purpose of 
depicting the past r ^establishment of the Levitical 
polity in both its branches by the ministration of 
Ezra and his successor Nehemiah. Analogy, it is 
true, is not mathematical evidence ; but, when it 
exactly tallies with the conclusion drawn from other 
arguments, it is not to be slighted. Now the re- 
establishment of Judah in the last ages is described 
under the very same imagery as that which Daniel 
,]aere uses to describe the resettling of the Levitical 
polity ecclesiastical and civil after the return from 
JBabylon* a Again I will build thee, and thou shalt 

« be, 



( 31S ) 

^ be built, O virgin of Israel * — I will cause' the 
t$ captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to 
" return, and will build them as at the first f — In 
m that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David 

that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; 
" and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as 
" in the days of old % — The sons of strangers shall 
** build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister 
" unto thee : for in my wrath I smote thee, but in 
" my favour have I had mercy on thee. Therefore 
" thy gates shall be open continually : they shall 
u not be shut day nor night — The sons also of them 
A< that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee ; 
" — they shall call thee the city of the Lord, the 
if Zion of the Holy One of Israel — -For brass I will 
ic bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for 
" wood brass, and for stones iron : — thou shalt call 
" thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise §— O 

thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not com- 
< £ forted, behold I will lay thy stones with fair co- 
" lours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires, 
" And I will make thy windows with agates, and 
" thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of 
tc pleasant stones ||," Now, since in these various 
passages, to which others might easily have been 

* Jerem. xxxi. 4. f Jerem. xxxiii. 7- t Amos ix. 11, 
| Isaiah lx f 10, li, 14, 17 } 3 8. || Isaiah liv. 11, 12. 

added, 



( 314 ) 

added, the yet future re'establishment of Judah is 
described under the imagery of rebuilding Jerusa- 
lem, it seems most agreeable to prophetic analogy 
to conclude, even independent of the arguments 
which have already been adduced, that the very 
•same imagery of rebuilding Jerusalem here employ- 
ed by Daniel relates, not to the rebuilding of the 
literal city, but to the reestabUsliment of the Levt- 
tical polity. So familiar indeed was this imagery 
to the Jews, that the writers of the New Testament, 
adopting it from their predecessors, apply it exactly 
in the same sense both to the establishment of the 
Christian Church here, and to its final complete set- 
tlement hereafter % 

On these grounds then (briefly to recapitulate what 
lias been said) I am induced to follow Dr. Prideauk 
in supposing, that the holy city destined to be rebuilt 
does not mean the literal Jerusalem, but the wJwl? 
Levitical polity so long as it continued holy unto God 
from its re'establishment by Ezra in the seventh year 
of Ai^taxerxes. 1. The times of this holy city -axe 
490 years i but 490 years are not the times of the 
literal Jerusalem : therefore the literal Jerusalem 
cannot be the holy city intended. 2. The 490 years 
expire with the crucifixion : therefore the times of 

* Sec 1 Cor. iii. 10. Ephes. ii. 19—22. Jude 20. Heb. 
ix* 11. xi. 10. Rev. xxi. 



( 315 ) 

the Mly city expire with the crucifixion : conse- 
quently they commence with the decree of Artax- 
erxes enacted precisely 490 years before the cruci- 
fixion. This being the case, the holy city itself 
must be the holy city which is the subject of that 
decree. But the holy city, the rebuilding of which 
is the subject of that decree, is a figurative holy city. 
Therefore the holy city in the prophecy must be a 
figurative holy city. And this conclusion is esta- 
blished by the -circumstance of the times of the figu- 
rative holy city being exactly 490 years : for the 
Levitical polity continued to be a city holy unto 
God from its restoration by Ezra to the day of the 
crucifixion, when it ceased to be the holy city of 
God. 3. The holy city destined to be rebuilt is 
plainly the city which Messiali should divorce: but 
the city to be divorced \§ a jigu rative city: therefore 
the city to be rebuilt is also a figurative city. 4k 
The allegorical phraseology, supposed in this expo- 
sition to be used in describing the first restoration 
of Juclah, is perfectly analogous to that, which is 
allowed to be used in describing his final resto- 
ration. 

II. But know and understand, from the 

GOING FORTH OF AN EDICT TO REBUILD JERU- 
SALEM unto the Anointed One the Prince 
shall be weeks seven and weeks sixty and 
two: it shall be rebuilt, with rER?£TUAL 

increase 



( 316 ) 



INCREASE AND FIRM DECISION, EVEN IX THE 
4SIIORT SPACE OF THE TIMES. 

I . Having ascertained the termination and there- 
fore the commencement of the seventy weeks, we 
proceed to consider the smaller periods into which 
they are subdivided. 

(I.) The seventy weeks being continuous, the 
smaller periods of which they are composed must 
be continuous likewise *. Hence the seven weeks 
and the sixty two weeks, which bring us unto Mes- 
siah the Prince, are equivalent to slvty nine weeks ; 
though a double mode of notation is used, because 
the rebuilding of the holy city was to be completed 
in the short space of the times, that is to say, in the 
seven weeks. But slvty nine prophetic weeks are 
equal to 483 years. If then we compute 483 years 
from the date of the edict passed by Artaxerxes 
Longimanus in the year A. C. 458 and in the yeai* 
4256 of the Julian period, we shall be brought to 
the year 26 of the Christian era and the year 4739 
of the Julian period. In this year therefore, since 
the seventy weeks must expire with the crucifixion, 
ive are directed to look for the coming of the Mes- 
uah intended by Daniel, when he teaches us, that 
from the going forth of the edict there should b« 
sixty nine zveeks unto the Anointed One the Prince. 

- * According to the 6th abstract position* 

Tht 



( sir ) 

The coming of the Messiah however must mear^ 
either his natural coming at his birth, or his official 
coming in his ministry. The former it cannot 
mean, because it is placed only seven years before 
his death : therefore it must mean the latter. 

The question then is, when our Lord is consi- 
dered in Scripture as coming officially in his minis- 
try. Now, that the ministry of the Gospel did not 
commence with his own personal preaching, but 
with the previous preaching of his harbinger John 
the Baptist, he himself expressly declares : " the 
" Law and the prophets were until John; since 
" that time the kingdom of God is preached, and 
" every man presseth into it *." Unto the Messiah 
therefore means unto the commencement of the Gos- 
pel dispensation, precisely as unto Moses means unto 
the commencement of the Levitical dispensation by 
the promulging of the Law f : and the Gospel dis- 
pensation commenced with the preaching of John 
the Baptist. Consequently we must look for the 
beginning of John's preaching seven years before 
the crucifixion, or in the year 4739 of the Julian 
period. 

According to St. Luke, the ministry of John com- 
menced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cesar ^ 



Luke xvi. If), f See Rom. v. 13, 14* 

| Luke xii, 1, 2= 



( 518 ) 

But there are two epochs, from cither of which the 
years of Tiberius may be reckoned. The one is the 
time, when, according to Velleius Paterculus, Ta- 
citus, and Suetonius, he was admitted by Augustus 
into a copartnership of the empire and had an equal 
power in the government of the provinces conferred 
upon him by law * : the other is the time, when, by 
the death of Augustus, he became sole emperor. 
The point therefore to be considered is, which of 
these epochs is adopted by St. Luke as the time 
whence he reckons the fifteenth year of Tiberias. 

Now, as Abp. Usher observes, Tiberius was ad- 
mitted into a copartnership of the empire in the 
year 4?£5 of the Julian period, and succeeded to 
the sole empire in the year 4728 of the same pe- 
riod. Consequently, his fifteenth year, reckoned 
from the first of these epochs, coincides with tire 
Julian year 4759 ; and, reckoned from the second,. 

* Veil. Pat. 1. ii. c. 120— Tac. Anna]. 1. i. c. 1— Suet, in 
Tiber, c. 21. The testimony of Paterculns is very strong to 
the purpose. " Conciissis hustium viribus, classicis peditum- 
" que expedition! bus, cum res Galliarum maxima? molis, ac- 
" eensasque plcbis Viennensium dissensiones, coercitione. ma- 
" gis quam poena, mollisset (Tiberius), et Senatus Populusque 
" Romanus, postulante patre ejus (Augusto), ut tequum ti jus 
il in omnibus provinciis exercitibutque essct quam erat ipsi, decreto 
" complexus esset ; — in urbem reversus, jam pridem debitum? 

sed continuatione bcllorum dilatum, ex Pannoniis Dalmatis- 
*' que egit triumph-um." 

with 



( m$ ) 

with the Julian year 4742. One or other of these 
years therefore must be that fifteenth year of his 
reign, which is specified by St. Luke as the era of 
the beginning of John's ministry. 

1 think with Dr. Prideaux that it must be the 
former of them : and I assent to his opinion on the 
following " grounds. 

It has been proved, as tar as matters of this kind 
are capable of proof, that the seventy weeks must 
expire with the crucifixion. It has also been proved,, 
that unto the Messiah means unto the commence- 
ment of the Gospel dispensation, and that the Gos- 
pel dispensation commenced with the preaching of 
John. If then these points have been proved, John 
must have begun to preach at the end of the sixtif 
-nine weeks : that is to say, as we* have seen above,, 
he must have begun to preach in the Julian year 
4739, when the sixty nine weeks expired. But this 
very year 4739 is the fifteenth year of Tiberius 
reckoned from his admission into a copartnership 
of the empire. Hence, if the premises be well esta- 
blished, the conclusion must be, that it is this fif- 
teenth year of which St. Luke speaks as being the 
year in which John began to preach. 

We shall be led to the same conclusion hy the 
internal evidence afforded in the history itself. If 
the ministry of John commenced in the other fif- 
teenth year of Tiberius, it must have commenced 

three 



( Sao ) 

three years later : in which case, it must have coin- 
men ced only a very few months before the baptism 
of Christ. But that is too short a space of time for 
the fame of John to have been spread far and wide, 
as we are assured by the sacred historians that it 
was, not merely before his death, but even before 
he baptized our Lord *. If then John could not 
have begun to preach in the fifteenth year of the 
sole reign of Tiberius, he must have begun in the 
fifteenth year reckoned from the admission of that 
prince into a copartnership of the empire ; because 
there is no other year in which he could have 
begun. 

The propriety of the conclusion seems to be fur- 
ther confirmed by the style adopted in the public 
acts of the empire. From the time when Tiberius 
was associated into the government, these went in 
his name as well as in that of Augustus ; and the 
usage especially prevailed in the imperial provinces, 
of which Syria was one. From that time therefore 
the years of his reign were reckoned in those pro- 
vinces. Whence it is natural to conclude, that St. 
Luke followed the ordinary mode of computation ; 
and, consequently, that his fifteenth year of Tiberius 
coincides with the Julian year 4739 1- 

* See Matt. iii. i— 13 — Mark i. g— 9— Luke iii. 1—22. 

$ .Sec PtifieauVs Co-inject. Part i. B. v. p. 303. 

Thu* 



( 321 ) 

Thus it appears, that the sixty nine weeks, which 
it was predicted should reach unto the Messiah, if 
reckoned from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Lon- 
gimanus, bring us exactly to the year 4739 of the 
Julian period or the fifteenth year of Tiberius, in 
which the Gospel dispensation commenced by the 
preaching of our Lords harbinger John the Bap- 
tist. 

(2.) This arrangement of St. Luke's fifteenth y;ear 
of Tiberius, when proposed by Dr. Prideaux, was 
violently objected to by Mr. Marshall; but the 
Dean was prevented by death from answering the 
arguments of his opponent ; he was removed from 
this life, while the work in which he was attacked 
was yet in the press. 

Mr. Marshall objects first and most vehemently^ 
that Dr. Prideaux sets aside the authority of Pto- 
lemy, notwithstanding he had spoken so strongly in 
favour of his canon, and notwithstanding he had 
himself censured Petavius and Abp. Usher for 
throwing back the commencement of the reign of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus ten or nine years in dei> 
ance of that canon. The Julian year 4739, ac- 
cording to the canon of Ptolemy, is the twelfth year 
of Tiberius : whereas, according to the Dean's 
reckoning, it is his fifteenth year. 

Such an objection promises much, but performs 
little. I will venture flatly to deny, that Dr. Pri- 



( 322 ) 

deaux does in this instance at all set aside the canoi> 
of Ptolemy. It is well known, that that writer 
uniformly computes the years of each sovereign 
from the death of his predecessor. According to 
this reckoning, Dr. Prideaux never denied, nor ever 
thought of denying, that the Julian year 4739 coin- 
cided with the twelfth year of Tiberius. But, though 
the computation of Ptolemy be uniform, it does not 
exclude the existence of other modes of computa- 
tion. Thus, in the case of Tiberius, the years of 
his reign are reckoned from two different epochs 
Ptolemy, agreeably to his fixed plan, calculates 
them from the death of Augustus : but they are 
likewise calculated from his admission into a copart- 
nership of the empire. Between these two modes 
of computation there is a difference of three years : 
so that, according to one of them, the Julian year 
4739 coincides with the fifteenth year of Tiberius ; 
and, according to the other, with his twelfth year. 
When an historian therefore speaks of the fifteenth 
year of this prince, it is abstractedly a matter of 
doubt which fifteenth year he speaks of: but, if 
tfhere be reason to suppose that he speaks of his fif- 
teenth year reckoned from his admission into a co- 
partnership of the empire, I see not how the adopt- 
ing of such a supposition can at all be construed 
into a rejection of the authority of Ptolemy — But 
the futility of this objection will better appear from 

considering N 



considering other parallel cases. 1. Jeremiah 
speaks of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar *, and 
Daniel speaks of his second year j* : yet no one 
doubts, nor did Mr. Marshall himself doubt, that 
these prophets use two different modes of reckon- 
ing. Jeremiah computes from the admission of 
Nebuchadnezzar into a copartnership of the em- 
pire: whence his first year of Nebuchadnezzar does 
not coincide with Ptolemy s first year of that prince 
or the Julian year 4110, but with the twentieth year 
of Nabopollassar or the Julian year 4108. But 
Daniel computes, like Ptolemy, from the death of 
Nabopollassar and the accession of Nebuchadnez- 
zar to sole empire : whence his second year of Ne- 
buchadnezzar coincides of course with Ptolemy's 
second year of the same prince. Are we then to 
be told that we set aside the authority of the canon, 
because we assert, that Jeremiah's first year of Ne- 
buchadnezzar is not Ptolemy's first year of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, but that it coincides with Ptolemy's 
twentieth year of Nabopollassar? Mr. Marshall 
himself asserts this very point, and no doubt justly; 
it is a matter generally acknowledged : yet, on the 
same ground, does he with equal vehemence and 
inconsistency, exclaim against Dr. Prideaux for his 
arrangement of St. Luke's fifteenth year of Tiberius. 



* Jerem. xxy. 1. 



f Dan. h. 1. 

The 



( 3M ) 

The cases are perfectly parallel. Nebuchadnezzar 
and Tiberius were alike admitted into a participa- 
tion of empire before the deaths of their respective 
predecessors : hence their reigns are alike computed 
by a double reckoning. Mr. Marshall admits, that, 
in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah follows 
one mode of reckoning, and Ptolemy another : but, 
when Dr. Pricleaux asserts, on what appeared to 
himself very sufficient grounds (of their sufficiency 
the reader must judge), that St. Luke, like Jere- 
miah, follows a mode of reckoning different from 
that of Ptolemy, Mr. Marshall immediately assails 
him as an impugner of the astronomical canon. 2* 
The same remark may be made respecting the firsfe 
year of Cyrus. None suppose that the first year 
of that prince according to Scripture and Xenophon 
is the same as his first year according to Ptolemy y 
except indeed Mr. Lancaster, whom Mr. Marshall 
justly censures on this very account : all know, that 
it is the same as his third year according to Ptolemy, 
put is the maintaining of this opinion to be called 
an impeachment of the veracity of the canon ? If 
it be, the Dean, had he lived, might well have re- 
torted upon his incautious assailant the charge of 
chronological delinquency — After what has been 
said, it seems almost idle to point out the palpable 
difference between Mr. M arshall's accusation of the 
Dean, and the Dean's accusation of petavius and 

Abp. 



( ms ) 

Abp. Usher. The Dean produces his authority for 
the assumption of Tiberius into a share of the go- 
vernment and for the computation of his years from 
that assumption : Petavius, without a shadow of 
authority, conjectures that Artaxerxes was admitted 
into a copartnership of the empire about ten years 
before the death of his father ; while the Primate, 
in absolute defiance of the canon, throws back that 
death the space of about nine years. 

Mr. Marshall next objects, that a much shorter 
period than three years and a half was sufficient 
very widely to have extended the fame of John the 
Baptist, and that John acted in his ministry after 
our Lord had entered upon his. 

All this may be perfectly true ; but it seems to 
me to bear very little upon the point in debate. 
The question is not, how long a time might be 
deemed sufficient to make the Baptist known through 
a very extensive region, nor how long a time he 
might cany on his ministry conjointly with our 
Lord : but, whether a very few months previous to 
the baptism of Christ were sufficient to have spread 
his fame in every direction. If they were not, he 
could not have begun to preach in Ptolemy s fif- 
teenth year of Tiberius : and, if he did not begin to 
preach then, he must have begun in the fifteenth 
year of Tiberius according to the other reckoning 
which coincides with his twelfth year according to 

Ptolemy ; 



( 326 ) 

Ptolemy; because there is no third intermediate 
fifteenth year in which he could have begun. 

He lastly objects, that both Josephus and Euse- 
bius reckon the years of Tiberius agreeably to the 
canon of Ptolemy : whence he infers, that it is next 
to a certainty that St. Luke did the same. 

The cogency of this objection will best appear by 
the application of the argument on which it is 
founded to a case which has already been adduced* 
Daniel reckons the years of Nebuchadnezzar agree- 
ably to the canon of Ptolemy : therefore it is next 
to a certainty, that Jeremiah did the same. So 
might we reason abstractedly with as much plausi- 
bility as Mr, Marshall does, but we should reason 
with just as little demonstrative evidence. If Da- 
niel's computation according to the canon will not 
prove that Jeremiah used the same mode of compu- 
tation (and we know that he did not use the same 
mode), it is difficult to conceive why the reckoning 
of St. Lcke must necessarily have been die same as 
the reckoning of Josephus and Eusebius # . 

Q. The 

* Marshall^ Treatise on the Ixx weeks, p. 182 — 198. As 
some might be inclined to think, that Dr. Prideaux and myself 
wish to compute the fifteenth year of Tiberius, mentioned by St. 
Luke, from the time of his admission into an equal share of the 
government, merely to serve a turn ; it may be useful to men- 
tion, that both the author of the preface to the Hationarium of 
Petavius, and other chronological writers wljom. he notice?, 

contend, 



( 327 ) 

% The sixty nim weeks are divided into seven 
'Weeks and sixty two weeks : and we are told, that 
the holy city is to be rebuilt, with perpetual increase 
and firm decision, in the short space of the times, 
or in the seven weeks, Seven prophetic weeks how- 
ever are equal to forty nine years : and the seven 
weeks , being the first term of the seventy weeks r 
must be computed from the same era ; that is to 
say, they must be computed from the seventh year 
of Artaxerxes Longimanus. If then they be com- 
puted from this year, which synchronizes with the 
year A. C. 458 and with the year 4^56 of the Ju- 
lian period, they will expire in the year A, C. 409 
and in the year 4305 of the Julian period. Here 
therefore we must look for the completion of the 
rebuilding of the figurative holy city ; by which can 
only be understood its ultimate reformation -and re- 
settlement. Npw the last act of reform, that took 
place under the administration of Nehemiah the 
successor of Ezra, was the final removal of unlaw- 
ful marriages from among the people *, The Law 
of Moses strictly prohibited all intermarriages of 

contend, without having any system of prophetic interpretation to 
mamtain, that that year must necessarily be so computed, and 
not from the commencement of his sole reign. Dissert, poster, 
c. iii. apud praefat. in edit. Genev. Petav. Ration. Temp. 
* 1$ is recorded in Nehern. xiii. 23< — 31. 

every 



( 328 ) 

every sort with any foreign nation * : but, subse* 
quent to the restoration from Babylon, this prohi- 
bition was very little regarded by the Jews, It is 
probable, that they first infringed the Law during 
their captivity, and that they brought back with 
them the forbidden practice into their own country. 
When Ezra came to Jerusalem, he found it very 
prevalent among them f ; and, though for a time he 
had checked it, yet the same corrupt practice had 
again sprung up when Nehemiah succeeded him J. 
Upon this the new governor caused all the people 
to enter into a covenant with God, and to bind 
themselves by a solemn oath and imprecation " to 
tc walk in Gods Law which was given by Moses 
<( the servant of God, and to observe and do all 
<c the commandments of the Lord and his judgr 
<£ meats and his statutes § ;<" among which was part- 
icularly specified the prohibition of strange mar- 
riages ||. Afterwards, a short time subsequent to , 
his last return to his government, with the view ap- 
parently of preventing any relapse into the same 
forbidden practice, he separated all the mixed mul- 
titude from the children of Israel Yet even this 
did not wholly eradicate the evil : for it grew up 

* Exod. xxxiv. 16— Dcut r vii. 3. f Ezra ix. x. 

% Nehem. x. SO. $ Nehem. x. 29. 

ii Nehem, x. 30 9 f" Nehem. xiii. 1 ? 2, 3. 

again* 



( 329 ) 

again * ; and at length attained to such a height, 
that the family of the high-priest, which of all 
others ought to have been careful in preserving it- 
self pure from such prohibited connections, was 
polluted with thern f . One of the sons of Joiada 
the high-priest, whose name Nehemiah does not 
mention, but whom Josephus calls Manassch J, 
married the daughter of Sanballafc the Horonite, 
Justly apprehensive of the mischievous effects of 
such an example, and finding that Manasseh was 
unwilling to part with his strange wife, Nehemiah 
exerted his authority to the utmost, and banished 
him from the country. The refractory priest fled 
into Samaria with many others who were in the same 
predicament, and settled there under the protection 
of Sanballat the governor. This was the last act of 
reformation that was found necessary in order to 
bring back the revived Levitical Church to the mo- 
del of the primitive one as constituted by Moses t 
and Nehemiah represents himself, as having com- 
pleted his labours, in the following words : " Thus 
¥ cleansed I them from all strangers, and appoint- 
■ c ed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every 
*■ one in his business ; and for the wood-offering., 

* Nehem. xiii, 23—27* t Neliem, xiii. 2S 0 

X Antiq, lib. xi. c. 7. § 2. 

" at 



( 330 ) 

u at times appointed ; and for the first fruits : re* 
" member me, O my God, for good *. w 

It is not to be dissembled, that the precise year, 
in which this final act of reformation took place, 
and in which consequently the figurative rebuilding 
of the holy city was finished, cannot be ascertained 
from history, Yet it can be shewn, that the epoch 
of it must be placed about the time where we are 
led by the prophecy to place it : because it can be 
shewn, that it must be placed not long after the ele- 
venth year of Darius Nothus. Nehemiah tells us, 
that the high- priest, whose son married the daugh- 
ter of Sanballat, was Joiada the son of Eliashib f. 
But, according to the Chronicon Alexandrinum, 
which gives the most exact account of the succes- 
sion of the high- priests from the Babylonian capti- 
vity to the times of the Seleucian kings, Joiada suc- 
ceeded his father in the high- priesthood in the year 
which corresponds with the eleventh year of Darius 
Nothus, with the year A. C. 413, and with the year 
4S0 1 of the Julian period ; as is manifest from the 
number of years, which this Chronicle ascribes to 
each high-priest J. Now from the year 4256 of 
the Julian period, in which the decree of the se- 
venth year of Artaxerxes was enacted, to the year 



* Nehem. xiii. 30, 31, f Nehem. xiii. 28. 

| &ee the chronological table in the Appendix, No, 2. 

4301 



( 331 ) 

4301 of the same period, there are forty-five years. 
Consequently, Joiada must have succeeded to the 
iiigh-priesthood forty-five years after the enacting 
of the decree from which the seven weeks are to be 
computed. Hence it is manifest, since the last act 
of Nehemiah's reformation took place in the high- 
priesthood of Joiada, that it must have taken place 
more than forty-five years after the enacting of the 
decree. How much more, history does not enable 
us positively to determine: four years more, if my 
view of the prophecy be just. For, if the seventy 
weeks expire with the crucifixion (as they must do 
if they look prospectively), and if consequently they 
commence in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus ; then the edict for the rebuilding of the holy 
city must be an edict for the rebuilding of the figu- 
rative holy city. And, if the edict for the rebuild- 
ing of the holy city be the edict for the rebuilding 
of the figurative holy city, which was passed in the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes ; then the forty-nine 
years, allotted for its rebuilding, must expire in the 
year 4305 of the Julian period, which synchronizes 
with the fifteenth year of Darius Nothus and with 
the fifth year of the high-priesthood of Joiada; 
And, if the rebuilding of the holy city be completed 
by the last act of Nehemiah's reformation (as it 
must be, if the figurative holy city be meant); then 
his last act of reformation must be fixed to the year 

4305 



( 33$ ) 

4305 of the Julian period. This, accordingly, h 
about the time where we must fix it ; because, since 
it took place in the high-priesthood of Joiada, and 
since Joiada succeeded to the hign-priesthood four 
years before the supposed expiration of the seven 
weeks, it cannot have taken place curlier than forty 
five years after the enacting of the decree. 

(1.) But here it may be objected, that Nehe- 
miah's last act of reformation did not take place in 
the high-priesthood of Joiada, but in that of his fa- 
ther EUashib; the word high-priest standing in ap- 
position with EUashib, not with Joiada : — Ci one of 
" the sons of Joiada the son of Eliashib the high-? 
u priest was son-in-law to Sanbaliat the lioro- 
" niteW 

I reply, that, if the last act of Nehemiah's refor* 
mation took place in the high-priesthood of Eiia? 
shib, the marriage of the son of Joiada must also 
have taken place in the same high-priesthood : that 
is to say, the son of Joiada must have been married 
in the high-priesthood, and consequently in the life- 
time, of his grandfather. But this is improbable 
generally, because it very rarely happens that a 
grandson is married during the life of his grand- 
father. And it is still more improbable (I had al- 
most said impossible) particularly, because the 

* Nektm, xiii. ft. 

members 



( 333 ) 

members of the sacerdotal family usually married 
later in life than the laity, and because the high- 
priesthoods of Joiakim and Eliashib and Joiada 
we're each so long that Manasseh scarcely could 
have been married in the life-time of his grandfather 
Eliashib — I likewise reply, that the idiom of th@ 
Hebrew language will not admit of such a construc- 
tion, as that which would place the word high-priest 
in apposition with Eliashib. The Jews, and other 
eastern nations, not having adopted the use of sur- 
names, were accustomed to distinguish one person 
from another who bore the same name by subjoin- 
ing the name of his father or some more remote 
ancestor of celebrity : Joiada the son of Eliashib 
therefore is in fact one name, expressed by the He- 
brews Joiada Ben-Eliashib. The same custom 
alike prevailed among the Welsh, the Irish, the 
Scots, and the Normans. Many of those names, 
which are now become regular surnames, were ori- 
ginally patronymics, and were changed every gene- 
ration. Thus, as Manasseh the son of Joiada Ben- 
Eliashib would call himself Marmseh Ben- Joiada, 
so, among the Normans, Robert the son of William 
Fitz-Eustace, would formerly have been designated 
Robert Fit.z-JFilliam. 

(2.) It may further be objected, that this arrange- 
ment does not accord with the chronology of Jose- 
ghus :, because he says, that the Manasseh, who 
5, espoused 



( 334 ) 

espoused the daughter of Sanballat, tvas th6 £>rd* 
flier of Jaddua the grandson of Joiada, and the soft 
of Johanan ; and that his marriage took place dur- 
ing the high-priesthood of Jaddua % 

To this I reply, that, supposing the same San- 
ballat to be spoken of by Nehemiah and Josephus 
(which indeed is sufficiently evident f,) the chrono- 
logy of Josephus must necessarily have been ren^ 
dered erroneous by his mistaking Darius Codoman* 
nus for Darius Nothus. Jaddua succeeded to the 
high-priesthood in the year A. C. 341 towards the 
end of the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus, and was 

* Perhaps it is not quite clear that Josephus says the whole 
of this, but I thought it right to put the objection in the strong- 
est form. He does not absolutely say, that Manasseh married 
the daughter of Sanballat in the high-priesthood of Jaddua, 
though such seems the most natural construction of the pas* 
sage. 

f It is incredible, that in the course of two or three genera- 
tions there should be two Sanballats, whose lives should be 
marked by exactly the same circumstances, the Sanballat of 
Scripture and the Sanballat of Josephus; that each should be 
governor of Samaria, that each should have a daughter mar- 
ried to a son of the Jewish high-priest, and that for the offence 
of contracting such a marriage the son-in-law of each should 
be banished his country. But, if the Sanballat of Josephus be 
the Sanballat of Scripture, then the Manasseh of Josephus must 
be the person who is said in Scripture to have married the; 
daughter of Sanballat and to have been the son of Joiada, 
though his name is not mentioned. 

contemporary 



( 535 ) 

contemporary with Darius Codomannus and Alex* 
fender the great. If then Manasseh married the 
daugiiter of Sanballat during the high-priesthood of 
jaddua, he must have married her, and have been 
banished by Nehemiah for his offence, subsequent 
to the year A. C. 341. But Nehemiah received his 
commission in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus in the year A. C. 445 ; at which time, 
from the importance of the trust committed to him, 
we cannot suppose him to have oeen less than thirty 
years of age, probably much more. Allow ing him 
however to have been no more than thirty years of 
age in the year A. C. 445 when he received his 
commission, he must have been one hundred and 
thirty-four years old in the year A. C. 341 when 
Jaddua succeeded to the high-priesthood ; and he 
must have been of a yet more advanced age, when 
he banished Manasseh on account of his unlawful 
marriage. But such a supposition, which must be 
adopted, if we adopt the chronology of Josephus, 
and if we assume that, when Nehemiah speaks of 
the sons of Joiada* he uses the word sons in a large 
sense, meaning grandsons: such a supposition, con- 
sidering the age of man which was not longer in 
those days than it is at present, is altogether in> 
probable f . 

* Neheia. xiii. %%. 

f See Prideaux's Connect. Part i. b. 6. p. 424 — 42f. 

(3.) To 



( 336 ) 

(3.) To this termination however of the seveii 
"weeks Mr. Marshall objects, both on the score of 
its being improbable that Nehemiah's last act of re- 
formation should have taken place so late, and on 
the score of the insufficiency of the argument ad- 
duced to prove that it was accomplished in the high- 
priesthood of Joiada rather than in that of his father 
Eliashib, 

The first of these objections I think sufficiently 
answered by stating the counter-improbability of 
Eliashib, during his life-time^ having a grandson of 
a sufficient age to be married. The high-priesthood 
of Joiakim lasted 30 years ; that of Eliashib, 40 
years ; and that of Joiada, 40 years likewise. Now 
it is obvious, that, where an office descends from fa- 
ther to son, three successive reigns could not have 
been so long, unless the high-priests had married 
late in life : for, whenever there is a series of early 
/narriages, though one reign may be very long, the 
liext must be proportionably short. But, if the 
high-priests married late in life, or (to be more par- 
ticular) if Eliashib the high-priest in question mar- 
ried late in life, as he must have done both to reign 
40 years himself and to have a son reign 40 years 
after him ; it is not very probable, that a grandson 
of his could have attained the marriageable age dur- 
ing his high-priesthood. The question therefore is, 
whether it be more probable* that Nehemiah's last 

act 



( 337 ) 

act of reformation took place when it is supposed 
to have done, or that Eliashib, who reigned 40 years 
himself, whose father reigned 30 years before him, 
and whose son reigned 40 years after him, should 
have lived to see the marriage of his grandson. I 
do not say, that such a thing is impossible; but, 
whether it be a more probable event than the sup- 
posed late act of Nehemiah's reformation, let the 
reader determine. 

If the weight of probability be against Mr. Mar- 
shall, his second objection will be of very little avaih 
Indeed it is urged in a manner, which seems to shew 
that its author did not consider himself as treading 
on very firm ground. He allows, that, according 
to " the usual eastern mode of writing," when the 
expression Joiada the son of Eliashib the high- 
priest occurs, we are to understand it as denoting 
that Joiada, not Eliashib, is the high-priest spoken 
of : but he thinks, that we have no right to infer 
that such is its import as used by Nehemiah ; be- 
cause, when that writer speaks of Eliashib, he sim- 
ply calls him Eliashib the priest or Eliashib the 
high-priest, not Eliashib the son of Joiakim the 
high-priest — The weight of this negative argument 
cannot be esteemed to be very great, when used to 
invalidate an acknowledged affirmative proposition* 
If it be allowed, that, according to " the usual eas- 
" tern mode of writing," the expression Joiada the 

Z son 



( 338 ) 

son of Eliashlb the high-priest denotes Joiada to be 
the high-priest in question, it is difficult to conceive 
the cogency of the argument, which would prove, 
that a writer uses the expression in a sense different 
from the usual eastern mode of writing, because he 
sometimes does not use it at all. In short Mr. 
Marshall's objective argument amounts to this : ac- 
cording to " the usual eastern mode of writing," the 
expression Joiada the son of Eliashib the high-priest 
imports that Joiada is the high-priest spoken of; 
Nehemiah however writes Eliashib the high-priest, 
and not Eliashib the son of Joiakim the high-priest ; 
therefore, when he writes Joiada the son of Elia- 
shib the high-priest , he means to speak of Eliashib, 
not of Joiada, as being high-priest, though accord- 
ing to the acknowledged usual eastern mode of 
writing we ought to understand exactly the re- 
verse. 

It may not be amiss to remark, that, although 
Mr. Marshall objects so heavily to Dr. Prideaux, 
his own supposition that the rebuilding of the literal 
Jerusalem was completed in 49 years is purely con- 
jectural. 

Thus, though I allow that it cannot be absolutely 
proved from history that Nehemiah's last act of re- 
formation took place precisely forty nine years after 
the enacting of the decree in the seventh year of 
Artaxerxes, we may, I think, fairly conclude from 

the 

6 



( 339 ) 

the prophecy itself viewed in connection with what 
can be proved from history, that its true date is the 
expiration of those forty nine years. 

3. We are told, that, during the short space of 
the seven weeks the rebuilding of the figurative city 
is to be carried on with perpetual increase and firm 
decision — The first of these expressions plainly re- 
lates to its being gradually built up to the purity of 
the original model. Ezra did much both towards 
reestablishing it, and towards removing various 
abuses which had crept in : Nehemiah completed 
the whole in every respect. But, if we read the 
history of those transactions, it will evidently ap- 
pear that the business was accomplished gradually, 
First one institution was appointed and one abuse 
removed, and then another : until at length, at the 
end of forty nine years, that forbidden practice 
which seems to have been the most inveterate was 
finally eradicated, and the rebuilding of the city 
finished — The second expression seems intended to 
describe the character of those, who were the chief 
agents in this great work. If we consider the va- 
rious difficulties that Ezra and Nehemiah had to 
encounter, we shall be convinced that it required 
no ordinary degree of firmness and decision to pro- 
secute with steadiness and resolution the business 
committed to them. Every impediment w as thrown 
in their way by the Samaritans, the Ammonites, the 

% 8 * Arabians, 



( 340 ) 

Arabians, and the Ashdodites, insomuch that the 
people were compelled to labour with a weapon in 
one of their hands. But outward opposition may- 
be considered as trifling compared to that from 
within. The work of reformation is never popular. 

The Jews returned again and again to the contract- 
ed o 

ing of forbidden marriages and to the open viola- 
tion of the sabbath. Even the son of the high-priest 
sanctioned the first of these abuses by his own ex- 
ample. Insomuch that all Nehemiah's promptitude 
and decision of character were not more than suffi- 
cient for the inflicting of punishment upon so ex- 
alted an offender, and for the stemming of such a 
torrent of corruption. But perseverance at length 
gained the victory : agreeably to the prophecy, the 
city was rebuilt with perpetual enlargement and 
with decisive firmness. 

III. And, after the weeks seven and the 
Weeks sixty and two, the Anointed One 

SHALL CUT OFF BY DIVORCE, SO THAT they shall 
be NO MORE HIS, BOTH THE CITY AND THE SANC- 
TUARY. 

We had before been told, that from the going 
forth of an edict to rebuild Jerusalem unto the 
Anointed One the Prince there should be the same 
space of time as that which is here again mentioned, 
namely sixty nine weeks : and we have seen, that 
these sixty nine weeks, reckoned from the enacting 

of 



( 341 ) 

of the decree in the seventh year of Artaxerxes 
bring us exactly to the year in which the preaching 
of the Gospel commenced. We are here further 
told, that, after the expiration of this same period, 
Messiah will divorce that Church, which, in the 
language of the ancient prophets, had always been 
figuratively represented as his mystical consort. 
The commencement therefore of his cutting her off 
by a bill of divorce must plainly be considered as 
synchronizing with the commencement of the mi- 
nistry of the Gospel. And, accordingly, these two 
circumstances synchronize exactly together. The 
Messiah came unto his own ; but, from the very 
first, his own received him not. The Gospel began 
to be preached by John ; but it was never received 
nationally by the Jews. From its earliest promul- 
gation the Lemtkal Church, as a body, rejected it. 
As it was predicted by Isaiah, that the Messiah 
should be despised and rejected of men ; so, when 
he came unto his own peculiar people, they hid as 
it were their faces from him ; they esteemed him a 
very wretch, judicially smitten of God # ; the light 
shone in darkness, and the darkness comprehended 
it not. When the Levitical Church therefore re- 
jected Christ the true bridegroom, he of necessity 

* Or, as the expression is interpreted in the Talmud, 
stricken with the leprosy, Tijey viewed him with as much ab- 
horrence as a leper* 

rejectee} 



( 342 ) 

rejected her from being his bride. Yet the bill of 
divorce, prepared and written as it now was, still 
was not formally giv@n into her hand *, until the 
Jews had filled up the measure of their iniquities 
by crucifying the Lord of life. Though no longer 
in spiritual communion with God during the last 
week of the seventy, yet the Levitical Church was 
forensically esteemed the holy city, until she had 
completed the apostasy by which she was finally 
separated from her heavenly bridegroom. The first 
step taken towards the divorce was at the end of 
the sivty nine weeks : the finishing hand was put to 
it at the end of the seventy weeks. At the close of 
the former period, the process (to speak in law 
terms) commenced, and the bill of divorce was 
sued out : at the close of the latter period, the pro- 
ceedings were completed, and the sentence of se- 
paration was finally pronounced. Yet, as among 
the Jews while the business of procuring a divorce 
was carrying on opportunities were studiously of- 
fered to the parties to effect a reconciliation with 
each other, and as the time of pronouncing the sen- 
tence was purposely protracted that nothing might 
be done hastily and without due deliberation f ; 
go were the proceedings of Messiah against the Le^ 

* Deut. xxiv. I. 

f See Calmet's Dictionary, Vox Divorce* 



( 343 ) 

vitical Church not urged forward with the impa- 
tient rapidity of inflexible severity, but carried on 
with merciful deliberation through the whole space 
of his ministry, that abundant time might be allowed 
for repentance and reconciliation. So accurate is 
the allegory in all its parts. 

That the divorce of the Levitical church com- 
menced with his ministerial coming, our Lord him- 
self teaches us by the mouth of his prophet Isaiah : 
and he afterwards foretells his passion, which, ac- 
cording to Daniel, takes place at the close of the 
seventy weeks. " Thus saith Jehovah, Where is 
" the bill of your mother's divorcement by which I 
u dismissed her ? Or who is he among my cre- 
" ditors to whom I have sold you ? Behold, for 
" your iniquities are ye sold, and for your aposta- 
" sies is your mother dismissed. Wherefore came 
u I 9 and there was no man? Called I, and none 
" answered? Is then my hand so greatly short- 
" ened, that I cannot redeem? And have I no 
" power to deliver ? — The Lord Jehovah hath given 
" me the tongue of the learned, that I might know 
" how to speak a seasonable word to the weary. 
" He wakeneth, morning by morning, he wakeneth 
" mine ear, to hearken with the attention of a 
*• learner. The Lord Jehovah hath opened mine 
" ear, and I was not rebellious ; neither did I with- 
H draw myself backward. I gave my back to the 

" smiters, 



( 344 ) 

lt smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off 
* the hair : my face I hid not from shame and spitr 
" ting. For the Lord Jehovah is my helper ; there- 
te fore I am not ashamed. Therefore have I set 
" my face as a flint ; and I know that I shall not 
" be confounded Messiah is here exhibited in 
his true character of Jehovah the Son, the husband 
of the Levitical Church ; but he is exhibited as be- 
ing constrained to divorce her, because she received 
km not at his coming. The speaker throughout 
the whole passage is evidently the same ; for there 
is no change of person, no intimation that any one 
else is introduced. At the beginning of it this 
speaker is declared to be Jehovah the husband of 
the Levitical Church. Yet he afterwards acknow- 
ledges that he receives his commission from the 
Lord Jehovah, and minutely foretells the bitter in- 
sults which he should experience at the time of his 
passion. Here then we have a plain proof of the 
divinity of the Messiah ; a position indeed, which 
necessarily follows from both Christ and Jehovah 
being represented as the husband of the Church. 

But, though the Levitical Church be divorced for 
a season, she is not always to be thus rejected. 
The same prophet, after describing with wonderful 
accuracy those sufferings of the Messiah by which 

; * Isaiah J. 1, % 4—7, 

the 



( 345 ) 

the divorce was consummated, impatiently (as it 
were) calls our attention to the rescinding of it and 
to the reespousals of the repudiated consort. " He 
" is despised and rejected of men ; a man of sor- 
• c rows and acquainted wjth grief ; and we hid as 
t£ it were our faces from him : he was despised, 
" and we esteemed him not— But he was wounded 
" for Our apostasies, he was bruised for our iniqui- 
" ties : the chastisement of our peace was upon 
• ' him ; and with his stripes we are healed — It 
■ li pleased the Lord to crush him with affliction. If 
" his soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice, he 
• £ shall see a seed which shall prolong their days — > 
• ' By the knowledge of him shall my righteous ser- 
" vant justify many; for he shall bear the punish- 
ment of their iniquities. Therefore will I distri- 
" bute the many to him for his portion, and the 
" mighty people shall he share for his spoil : be- 
• l cause he hath poured out his soul unto death : 
*' and he was numbered with the apostates, and he 
" bare the sin of many, and made intercession for 
fc the apostates. Shout for joy, O thou barren that 
" didst not bear ; break forth into joyful shouting, 
" and exult, thou that didst not travail : for more 
" are the children of the desolate than of the mar- 
ff ried wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of 
u thy tent, and let the canopy of thy habitation be 
■ c extended : spare not ; lengthen thy cords, and 

" firmly 



( 345 ) 

" firmly fix thy stakes. For, on the right hand 
" and on the left, thou shalt burst forth with in- 
" crease ; and thy seed shall inherit the nations, 
" and they shall inhabit the desolate cities. Fear 
" not, for thou shalt not be confounded, and blush 
" not, for thou shalt not be brought to reproach : 
" for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth ; 
" and the reproach of thy widowhood thou shalt 
" remember no more. For thy husband is thy 
" Maker; Jehovah God of hosts is his name: and 
" thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel ; the 
" God of the whole earth shall he be called. For, 
" as a woman forsaken and deeply afflicted, hath 
" the Lord recalled thee ; and, as a wife wedded in 
" youth but afterwards rejected, saith thy God. 
" In a little anger have I forsaken thee ; but with 
" great mercies will I receive thee again : in a short 
u wrath I hid my face for a moment from thee; 
" but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy 
" on thee, saith thy Redeemer Jehovah # ." 

It is obvious, that this interpretation of the pas- 
sage necessarily requires us to understand the holy 
city that was to be rebuilt in a figurative sense : for 
the holy city and the sanctuary, which the Messiah 
cut off from him by divorce, are plainly not the lite- 
ral town and temple of Jerusalem, but the Lexitical 

* Isaiah liii. 3, 5 ? 10, 13, )?. liv. Z—8. 

Church 



( 347 ) 

Church and polity. And, that this interpretation 
must be the right one, follows from the circumstance 
of its being the only one that can be made to ac- 
cord with the chronology of the prophecy. The 
verb rny cannot be translated passively, and ap- 
plied to the cutting off of the Messiah by a violent 
death ; because the crucifixion did not take place 
at the end of the sixty nine weeks, but at the end of 
the seventy weeks : and even those expositors, who 
would persuade us (contrary to the obvious mean- 
ing of the words) that unto the Messiah means unto 
his death, are still unable, even after they have 
adopted an untenable mode of calculation, to shew 
that the Messiah was cut off precisely at the end of 
the sixty nine weeks ; which (according to that tran- 
slation of rny) the terms of the prophecy require. 
Neither can the verb rfQ> be translated actively 
shall cut off in the sense of utter excision : because, 
although our Lord did at length thus cut off the li- 
teral city and sanctuary by the instrumentality of 
the Romans, he certainly did not so cut them off at 
the end of the sixty nine weeks, but several years 
subsequent to the expiration even of the seventy 
%veeks. But, if neither of these interpretations be 
tenable, it will be difficult to find a third except that 
which is here proposed ; more especially a third, 
which, like this, exactly corresponds with the chro- 
nology of the prophecy. And, if this interpretation 

be 



( 348 ) 

be the true one, of which I have little doubt; it will 
necessarily follow, as I have just observed, that the 
hoi}) city must be a figurative holy city, as we are 
compelled to conclude from the tenor of that decree 
to w r hich we are brought by computing backward 
490 years from the last of the particulars destined 
to be accomplished within the seventy weeks. 

IV. For THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE THAT 
SHALL COME SHALL ACT CORRUPTLY '. BUT THE 
END THEREOF SHALL BE WITH A FLOOD; AND 
UNTO THE END OF A WAR FIRMLY DECIDED UPON 

shall be desolations. 

1 . Since the preceding part of the prophecy fore- 
told the rebuilding of the figurative city and assign- 
ed the commencement of its reestablishment as the 
date of the seventy weeks ; and since it afterwards 
foretells, that, notwithstanding its being thus rebuilt, 
Messiah should cut it off from him by divorce at 
the end of the sixty nine weeks : it may naturally 
be expected, that a reason should be assigned for 
its being thus signally rejected of God and thus for- 
mally repudiated by its divine bridegroom. Ac- 
cordingly, the prophecy goes on to inform us, that 
the people of the Prince that should come should 
act corruptly. At the time when our Lord made 
his appearance, the scribes and Pharisees had re- 
duced the Law to a mere system of decent forma- 
Jity. Its precepts were deprived of their spiri- 
tuality 1 



( 349 ) 

tuality : and these blind leaders of the blind con- 
trived by their vain traditions to authorize even the 
direct transgression of God's commandments *„ 
Painfully laborious in their observance of each mi- 
nute ceremonial ordinance, they utterly neglected 
what was indeed of importance. While they were 
punctiliously curious respecting meats and drinks 
and washings, they totally forgot that the only real 
pollution is of a spiritual nature. Intent on adjust- 
ing the exact proportion of tithe of mint and anise 
and cummin, they omitted the weightier matters of 
the Law, judgment and mercy and faith. Scrupu- 
lous in cleansing the outside of the cup and the 
platter, within they were full of extortion and ex- 
cess. Insomuch that our Lord pronounced the 
prophecy of Isaiah to have been exactly accom- 
plished in them : " This people draweth nigh unto 
" me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their 
" lips, but their heart is far from me ; but in vain 
<£ do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the 
" commandments of men f Nay even stronger 
language than this was used both by himself and 
by his precursor John. " O generation of vipers," 
exclaimed his indignant harbinger, fully assured that 
at that very moment the sentence of divorce was 
gone forth against the Levitical Church and that she 



* See Matt. xv. 3—6, 



f Matt, xv. 7, S, 9. 

>vas 



( 350 ) 

was on the point of being cut off from the Messiah, 
fully assured that from that time another consort 
was espoused who should bring forth unto her Lord 
anew generation of spiritual children: " O genera- 
" tion of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from 
" the wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore fruits 
" meet for repentance : and think not to say within 
" yourselves, We have Abraham for our father: 
" for I say unto you, that God is able of these 
u stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And 
" now also the ax is laid to the root of the trees : 
" therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good 
" fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. I in- 
" deed baptize you with water unto repentance : but 
" he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose 
" shoes I am not worthy to bear ; he shall baptize 
" you with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; whose 
" fan is in his hand, and he shall thoroughly 
" purge his floor, and gather his wheat into 
" the garner; but he will burn up the chaff 
" with unquenchable fire*." The awful admo- 
nition of the Baptist however was disregarded: 
and the people of the Prince that should come went 
on corrupting themselves, until at length, as it was 
predicted of them, they completed their apostasy. 
Hence our Lord himself addresses them, shortly be- 

* Mattiii. 7—12. 

fore 



( 351 ) 

fore his crucifixion, in the same strong terms of re- 
prehension, that his precursor had adopted. " Wo 
" unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for 
" ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed 
" appear beautiful outward, but are within full of 
" dead men's bones and of all uncleanness. Even 
" so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, 
" but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity, 
" Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! 
" because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and 
" garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, 
u If we had been in the days of our fathers, -we 
" would not have been partakers with them in the 
" blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses 
" unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them 
" which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the 
" measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye genera- 
" tion of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation 
" of hell ? Wherefore behold I send unto you pro- 
" phets, and wise-men, and scribes: and some of 
" them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of 
" them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and 
" persecute them from city to city : that upon you 
*' may come all the righteous blood shed upon the 
" earthy from the blood of righteous Abel unto the 
" blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye 
" slew between the temple and the altar. Yerily 
" I say unto you^ All these things shall come upon 

" this 



( 33% ) 

u this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem*, thoti 
" that killest the prophets, and stonest them which 
u - are sent unto thee, how often would I have ga- 
" thered thy children together even as a hen ga- 
" thereth her chickens under her wings, and ye 
" would not! Behold, your house is left unto you 
" desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see 
" me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that 
" cometh in the name of the Lord *." Such were 
the Jews during the ministry of Christ ; and, what 
they were at the time of the destruction of their 
city and temple by Titus, let their own historian Jo- 
sephus declare. " Every human law was trodden 
" under foot by them ; all divine institutions were 
" ridiculed ; and they scoffed at the oracles of their 
" ancient prophets, as the idle reveries of fanati- 
" cism|. — I believe, that, if the Romans had delay- 
" ed to execute judgment on those wretches, their 
" city would either have been swallowed up by an 
" earthquake, or swept away by a flood, or de- 
" stroyed like Sodom by lightning; for it produced 
" a race far more impious than those who suffered 
" such calamities 

* Matt, xxiii. 2/--30. 

t Joseph de bell. Jud. lib. iv. cap. 6*. { 3. p, I1SS. edk. 
Hudson. 

| Ibid. lib. v. cap. 13. §. 6. p. 1256. 

% As 



( 353 ) 

As the mention of the divorce naturally led 
the prophet to account for it by specifying the ex- 
treme corruption of the people ; so, from specifying 
their extreme corruption^ he is hastily carried on to 
foretell the punishment of it. The end of this cor- 
rupt race is to be with a flood. In the language of 
prophecy, a flood, as it is well known, is continually 
used to describe a hostile invasion. Such accord- 
ingly was the end of the Jewish nation. The Ro- 
man armies, like a mighty inundation, swept it away, 
and its members have ever since been scattered 
over the face of the whole earth. 

3. Daniel adds, that unto the end of the war- 
should be desolations. He here expresses literally 
what he had before described figuratively. This 
tremendously desolating war is that which was oc- 
casioned by the progress of the allegorical inunda- 
tion ; and perhaps there never yet was a war of 
equal duration that was equally destructive. 

( 1 .) The siege of Jerusalem commencing at the 
celebration of the Passover, an immense multitude 
of people, which at another time would have been 
spread abroad through the country, were cooped up 
in the city as in a prison : whence, as might naturally 
be expected, they soon experienced all the horrors 
both of famine and pestilence. The miseries, which 
the besieged endured, are described with much ela- 

A a borate* 



( $54 ) 

borateness of detail by Josephus * : and, among 
other particulars, sufficient to freeze the blood with 
horror, he relates the well- known story of the noble 
woman who killed her own child for the sake of 
foodf. In short, they weie reduced to such extre- 
mities, that they eagerly devoured what the most 
filthy animals would have refused J. Nor was this 
the whole of their distress. While their enemies as- 
saulted them from without, civil discord raged with- 
jn. Of so peculiarly savage a nature was the de- 
vastating fury of the Zealots, that the Jewish histo- 
rian compares their faction to a wild beast, which, 
for want of other food, preys upon its own vitals §. 
" There was an ancient oracle among them," says 
he, " which foretold, that the city would be taken, 
iC and the holy places burnt according to the laws of 
" war, when a sedition should break out, and when 
il the hands of the native citizens should pollute the 
u temple of God." And he adds, that " the Zea- 
" lots, believing it, readily lent themselves to be the 
u ministers of its accomplishment ||." 

Such were the miseries, that befell Jerusalem 
during its siege and previous to the time when it was 

* Joseph, de bell. Jud. lib. v. cap. 12. § 3. p. 1252. 
f Ibid. lib. vi. cap. 3. § 4. p. 1274. 
% Ibid. lib. vi. cap. 3. § 3. p. 12/4. 
$ Ibid. lib. v. cap. 1. § 1. p. 1211. 
fi Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 6. § 3. p. 1188.- 

takejs 



( 355 ) 

taken and sacked by the Romans: but the most com- 
plete idea of its desolation is conveyed to the mind 
by the historian's account of the destruction of the 
temple, which may well be considered as the con- 
summation of its calamities. " While the sacred 
" edifice was burning, every thing was plundered 
a by the soldiers, and all who were taken were 
" slaughtered without mercy. Neither age, nor 
cs rank, was spared: but boys and old men, the 
" laity and the priesthood, were equally slain. All 
f • suffered alike, whether they asked for quarter, or 
" defended themselves. The crackling of the flames 
tc was heard in horrid concert with the groans of the 
et dying : and, from the loftiness of the hill and the 
* bulk of the edifice that was burning, it might have 
" been thought that the whole city was on fire. No- 
" thing can be conceived either louder or more 
" dreadful than the clamour. The war-cry of the 
" Roman legions rushing forward to the work of 
" death mingled with the yell of the insurgents 
" hemmed in by fire and sword. The people, that 
" were left above, threw themselves in all the mad- 
" ness of despair upon their enemies, uttering hor- 
" rible shrieks on account of the greatness of their 
" sufferings. Those in the city joined their out- 
" cries to those upon the hill. Manv, who were 
" half dead with famine, when they saw the confla- 
*f gration of the temple, burst forth again into fran- 
a a 2 tic 



( S56 ) 

c: tic howiirigs and lamentations. Pert a and flic 

u surrounding mountains reechoed to their cries > 

€C and the loud reverberation increased the noise of 

" the combatants. Yet the slaughter was more 

" dreadful than even the noise. The hill, on which 

" the temple stood, appeared to be one blaze of 

" fire from its very roots. Nevertheless, the tor- 

" rents of blood were still more copious ; and the 

" multitude of the slaughtered exceeded that of the 

*' slaughterers. No where could the ground be 

" seen on account of the dead bodies which covered 

u it. The soldiers, trampling upon heaps of car- 

" cases, pursued those that fled from their fury, — • 

u until they came to a portico of the outer temple 

4( that was yet standing. To this women and chil- 

ce dren and a mixed multitude had fled to the num- 

" ber of about six thousand. Before Cesar had 

" determined any thing concerning them and be- 

" fore the generals had given any orders, the sol- 

" diers hurried on by rage set the portico on fire. 

" Whence it happened, that some perished in the 

tc flames, and others by throwing themselves down 

<c headlong to escape them ; insomuch that not a 

cc single soul was saved*. 5 ' 

Well then might Josephus observe, that " the 

u miseries of no nation upon record, even from the 

* Joseph, de bell. Jud. lib. vi. cap. 5. § 1, 2. p. 1280, 1281. 

" most 



( 357 ) 

" most remote antiquity, were in any degree compa- 
<f rable with those of the Jews*." Weil might he 
declare, as if in confirmation of the prophecies 
both of Daniel and of that Messiah whom his coun- 
trymen rejected, " I am persuaded, that there never 
" existed so wicked a race of men, or a city that 
" underwent such sufferings : they themselves 
" pulled down destruction upon their own heads jV' 

(2.) These dreadful calamities however were by 
no means confined to Jerusalem alone : as it had 
been predicted, from the very beginning to the very 
end of the war there were desolations throughout 
all the territory of J udea. "The victories of the 
" Romans were not confined to this or that place, 
" but like a flood overran the whole land Jose- 
" phus says, that there was no part of Judea, which 
" did not partake of the calamities of the capkai 
" city. At Antioch the Jews being falsely accused 

of a design to burn the city, many of them were 
" burnt in the theatre, and others were slain. The 
" Romans pursued, and took, and slew, them every 
" where : as particularly at the siege of Macherus • 
" at the wood Jarcies, when th Jews were sur- 
" rounded, and none of them escaped, but being 
■- not fjBwer .tlian three thousand were all slain; and 



* Joseph, de bell. Jud. in Proem. § 4. p. 
f Ibid. lib. v. cap. 10. § 5. p. 124-6. 
I «' Theii end shall be with a flood.'* 



( 358 ) 

" at Masada, where, being closely besieged and 
■ c upon the point of being taken, they first murdered 
" their wives and children and then themselves to 
" the number of nine hundred and sixty, to prevent 
*' their falling into the enemies hands. When 
" Jud&a was totally subdued, the danger extended 
" to those who dwelt at a distance. Many were 
" slain in Egypt, and their temple there was shut 
" up : and, in Cyrene, the followers of Jonathan, a 
" weaver, and author of new disturbances, were 
" most of them slain. He himself was taken pri- 
u soner ; and by his false accusation three thousand 
" of the richest Jews were condemned and put to 
u death. With this account Josephus concludes 
" his history of the Jewish war *." 

What has been said might alone be sufficient to 
shew the accuracy of Daniel's prediction, that unto 
the end of the war should be desolations: but Bp. 
Newton has given us from Josephus a summary of 
these desolations, which so remarkably verifies the 
prophecy, that it is peculiarly apposite to my pre- 
sent purpose. " Of those, who perished during the 
" whole siege of Jerusalem, there were 1,100,000, 
" Many also were slain at other times, and in other 
" places. By the command of Florus, who was 
? ' the first author pf the war, there were slain at Je- 

f Bp. Newton's Dissert, xix t 

" rusaleni 



( 359 ) 

w rusalem 3600; by the inhabitants of Cesarea, 
" above 20,000 ; at Scythopolis, above 13,000; at 
" Ascalon 2500, and at Ptolemais 2000 ; at -Alex- 
" andria, under Tiberius Alexander the president, 
" 50,000 ; at Joppa, when it was taken by Cestius 
" Gallus, 8400; in a mountain called Aminon near 
" Sepphoris, above 2000 ; at Damascus, 10,000 • 
" in a battle with the Romans at Ascalon, 10,000 ; 
<( in an ambuscade near the same place, S000 ; at 
£y ' Japha, 15,000; of the Samaritans upon mount 
" Garizin, 11,600; at Jotapa, 40,000; at Joppa 
u when taken by Vespasian, 4200 ; at Tarichea 
" 6500, and after the city was taken 1200; at 
" Gamala, 4000 slain, besides 5000 who threw 
" themselves down a precipice ; of those who fled 
" with John from Gischala, 6000; of the Gada- 
" renes, 15,000 slain, besides an infinite number 
" drowned ; in the villages of Idumea, above 
" 10,000 slain; at Gerasa, 1000; at Macheras, 
" 1700 ; in the wood of Jardes, 3000 ; in the cas- 
u tie of Masada, 960 ; in Cyrene by Catullus the 
" governor, 3000. Besides these, many of every 
" age, sex, and condition, were slain in this war, 
<c who are not reckoned: but, of these who are 
" reckoned, the number amounts to above 
" 1,357,660 ; which would appear almost incredi- 
" ble, if their own historian had not so particularly 
<s enumerated them*." 

* Bp, Newton's Dissert, xx» 

4. 1 have 



( 360 ) 

4. I have hitherto left unnoticed the epithet which 
.Daniel applies to this desolating war, though it is 
highly deserving of our attention : he styles it a war 
firmly decided upon or absolutely and irrevocably 
predetermined. The phraseology here adopted al- 
ludes, if I mistake not, to the prophecies which were 
so awfully accomplished in the course of the Jewish 
war, particularly those of Moses and our Lord. The 
prediction of Moses is so wonderfully minute in its 
detail of circumstances, that it resembles a history of 
past events rather than a prophecy of what was then 
future *. The prediction of our Lord refers to 
former prophecies ; and declares, that the impend- 
ing calamities of the Jewish nation were so irrevoca- 
bly predetermined (to use the language of Daniel), 
that the universe itself might sooner be dissolved 
than they should fail of taking place. " When ye 
" shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies," says 
he, " then know that the desolation thereof is ni^h. 

Then let them which are in Judea fke to the 
# mountains; and let them which are in the midst 
*• of it depart out ; and let not them that are in the 
" countries enter thereinto. For these be the days 
" of vengeance, that all things which are written 
" may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are 



* Deut. xxviii. xxix. See Bp. Newton's Dissertation on this 
prophecy* 

" with 



( 361 ) 

" with child, and to them that give suck in those 
" days, for there shall be great distress in the land, 
". and wrath upon this people. And they shall 
" fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led 
W captive into all nations — And, when these things 
" begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up 
" your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh — 
" Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees : when they 
" now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own- 
selves, that summer is now nigh at hand. So 
ic likewise, when ye see these things come to pass, 
" know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 
M Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not 
" pass away till all (these) things shall be. Heaven 
il and earth shall pass away ; but my words shall not 
" pass away*" Thus it appears, that this war, be- 
ing the appointed punishment for the heinous sin of 
the Jews in killing the Messiah, was, in an especial 
manner, firmly decided upon, or ir revocably prede- 
termined, in the divine counsels. Heaven and earth 
might have sooner passed away, than the words of 
Christ. The days of vengeance were absolutely 
doomed to come, in order that all things which had 
been written might be fulfilled f. 

k 

* Lukexxi. 20—24, 28—33. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 3^. 
f " Let the Jew?," says Abp. Tiliotson, 4< give us any pro* 
w bMe account, for what great sin it was that God first gave 

v then* 



( S6Z ) 

It is a remarkable circumstance, that Josephus 
the Jew, and Titus the Roman, alike bear their 
testimony to the propriety of the epithet which Da- 
niel bestows upon this war. Josephus was so struck 
with the tremendous calamities which befell his 
countrymen, that he sometimes ascribes them to the 
fatal influence of some irreversible decree, and at 
other times to the particular overruling Providence 
of God. " They were blinded," says he, " by that 
" fate, which was impending over their city and 
" themselves *~— The vast multitude (in Jerusalem) 
" was collected together from without; for the 
u whole nation was by fate shut up as in a 
* c prison, the war having beleaguered the city 
<c when it' was crouded with men : wherefore the 
a multitude of the slain exceeded any calamity whe- 
" ther inflicted by human or divine agency \ — 

Cl them up to that great judgment of an industrious endeavour 
" to destroy one another. If they cannot, let them believe the 
" account which the history of the New Testament gives of it; ? 
** and the truth whereof was so well confirmed by the fulfilling 
" our Saviour's predictions against them. The Apostle gives a 
*' clear account of their sin in 1 Thess. ii. 15, l6. That it was 
4< because they had killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, 
H and persecuted the Apostles." Sermons, Vol. xii. p. 35. 

* UtTTypcoflo yap vtto 78 Xftuv, o fyjTE TToXei kui avion; vj^rj ir&pw, 

Joseph, de bell. Jud. lib. v. cap. xiii, § 7. p. 1256. 

f Ibid. lib. vi. cap. 9. § 4. p, 1291. His expression in this 
'passage is vkq h^[A,imu 

i! Hence 



( 363 ) 

f( Hence we may learn both the power of God over 
" the wicked, and the fortune of the Romans 
So again, addressing himself to John and his coun- 
trymen, he exclaims, " I am exhorting you in oppo- 
P sition to fate, I am forcibly attempting to save 
" those who are condemned by God. Who is igno- 
c * rant of the writings of our ancient prophets ? Who 
" knows not, that an oracle is now impending over 
" this zvretched city? God truly, God himself 
" brings by the agency of the Romans expiatory 
% fire to consume your temple, and is on the point 
" of subverting your city full of so many abomina- 
" tions f" In a similar manner he elsewhere de- 
clares, that " it was God, who had condemned the 
" whole people, and who was turning to their de- 
" struction every attempt to save them J." As for 
Titus, pagan as he was, when he viewed the im- 
mense strength of the fortifications after the city 
was taken, he could not refrain from exclaiming 
" W r e have fought with God on our side; and it is 
u God, who hath dragged the Jews out of these 
" strong holds ; for what could either the hands of 
" men or warlike machines do against those 
*' towers r' 3 And, as if a single exclamation were in- 

* Joseph, debell. Jud. lib. vi. cap. 8. § 4. p. 1289, 
f Ibid. lib. vi. cap. 2. § 1. p. 1267, 
% Ibid. lib. v. cap. 13. § 5. p. 1255. 

sufficient 



( 36'4 ) 

sufficient to describe the impression made upon his 
mind, he continued, as we are informed by the his- 
torian, to converse i^epeatedly with his friends on the 
same subject*. 

V. Yet he shall make firm a covenant 

WITH MANY FOR ONE WEEK. 

Daniel had brought us to the end of the sixty 
nine weeks, when the mention of Messiah's divorc- 
ing the city and sanctuary at that time naturally led 
him to account for the circumstance, on the score of 
the extreme corruption and wickedness of the peo- 
ple; and the specification of their corruption no less 
naturally carried him on to predict their punisJi- 
ment. As yet however he has left unnoticed the 
last week of the seventy. He now therefore, for the 
purpose of shewing us how the seventieth week 
would be employed, returns to the end of the sLvty 
nine weeks, from which the mention of the divorce 
had led him to make an anticipatory digression. We 
might indeed already have concluded, that this 
\<veek would be devoted to the ministry of the Gos- 
pel : for, since the sixty nine weeks bring us unto the 
Messiah by which expression (as it has been shewn) 
we must understand unto the commencement of the 
Gospel ministry, and since the events with which 
the seventy weeks expire synchronize with the enact* 

f Joseph, de bell. Jud. Iil, vi. cur. 9- § *• j>, 1*90. 

fixion j 



( 365 ) 

flxion ; the last week must necessarily be the period 
©f our Lord's ministration, either in his own person, 
or in that of his precursor John the Baptist. But 
we are now specially informed, that such is the case. 
Though the Messiah should, at the end of the 
sixty nine weeks, begin to cut off from him by 
divorce both the city and the sanctuary ; yet should 
he nevertheless make firm a covenant, even 
the Christian covenant of grace, with many for one 
week. 

The making of this new covenant was the conse- 
quence of disannulling the former covenant with the 
Levitical Church. Hence there is a peculiar pro- 
prietv in mentioning it at the very time, when the 
prophet was so awfully proving, by the judgments 
which should befall the Jewish nation, that their 
covenant with God existed no longer. Thrice in 
the year, at the three great festivals of the Passover, 
the Feast of weeks or Pentecost, and the Feast of 
the tabernacles or in-gathering, all the males were 
required by the Law to appear before G od at Jeru- 
salem, Such a concourse to the capital would ne- 
cessarily leave the frontiers and every fortified place 
wholly unguarded : under any form of government 
therefore, except a theocracy, this injunction would 
have been the very height of impolitic madness. But 
their divine king bound himself by covenant to 

guard 



( 36*6 ) 

guard them upon these occasions, by taking away 
from their neighbours even the very desire of in> 
vading them. u The feast of unleavened bread 
" shalt thou keep : seven days thou shalt eat un- 
leavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time 
" of the month Abib ; for in the month Abifcr thou 
" earnest out from Egypt — In earing time and in 
" harvest thou shalt rest. And thou shalt observe 
" the feast of weeks of the first fruits of wheat-har- 
" vest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. 
" Thrice in the year shall all your males appear 
" before the Lord God, the God of Israel. For I 
46 will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge 
" thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy 
46 land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the 
" Lord thy God, thrice in the year # ." Now it is a 
remarkable circumstance, that the siege of Jerusa- 
lem commenced at the time of one of their great fes- 
tivals, that of the Passover, when the whole multi- 
tude of the people were gathered together into the 
city to celebrate it. Hitherto God, agreeably to 
his covenant, had protected them ; but now, as if to 
shew the complete disannulling of the covenant, he 
brought their enemies upon them at the very time 
when they esteemed themselves peculiarly under 



* Exod . xxx iv. 18, 2 It— 24. See also Deutcr, xvi. 

5 tk6 



( 367 ) 

the divine protection. Whatever might befall 
them at other times, in the days of each of their 
great festivals they considered themselves as per- 
fectly secure, because God had covenanted that 
they should be so *. When one of these very festi- 
vals therefore was selected as the era of the com- 
mencement of their destruction, they were by that 
circumstance completely ensnared to their ruin : 
they were, as Josephus remarkably expresses it, 
** cooped up in their city, as in a prison, by the in- 
" vincible decree of fate." 

Besides this unequivocal demonstration that the 
covenant with the Levitical Church was disan- 
nulled, it is worthy of notice that more than one cir- 
cumstance occurred both during the siege and pre- 
vious to it which seem to have been ordained to inti- 
mate that such was now the case. " About four 
" years before the war broke out," says Josephus, 
" while the city was yet enjoying peace and plenty, 
M one Jesus the son of Ananus, a rustic of low rank, 

* This persuasion appears very strongly in the speech which 
John addressed to Josephus, when the latter had been persuad- 
ing the infatuated Jews to spare their country. " They had 
" no reason/' he observed, " to fear destruction, inasmuch 
if as Jerusalem was the city of God." Joseph de bell. Jud* 
lib. vi. cap. 2. § l.p. 1267. 

" coming 



( 368 ) 

H coining to the festival in which it was the custom 
" for all to pitch tabernacles near the temple in ho- 
" nour of God, suddenly began to exclaim, A 
" voice from the east, a voice from the xvest, a voice 
" from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem 
" and the temple, a voice against bride-grooms and 
" brides, a voice against the whole people. Such 
" was his cry, night and day, through all the streets 
" of the city. Some however of the leading men, 
if indignant at this ill-omened language, appre- 
" hended him and punished him with many stripes, 
*i But he, neither saying any thing in his own behalf, 
" nor privately supplicating those who scourged 
" him, continued to utter the same exclamations 
" that he had done before. Wherefore the magis- 
?f trates, think, as was truly the case, that the man 
" must be under the influence of some divine im- 
" pulse, brought him before the Roman governor ; 
" where, although scourged to the very bones, he 
" neither made any supplication, nor shed a single 
" tear ; but, as much as his strength permitted him, 
" he still at every stroke cried out in a lamentable 
" voice, Woe y woe, to Jerusalem. But, when Albi- 
" nus (for fie was at that time the governor) asked 
u him, who he was, and whence he came, and why 
" he uttered such exclamations ; to all these ques- 
" tions he gave no answer, ceasing not to denounce 
" the same miseries against the city, until Albinus 
4 cc was 



( m > 

" was constrained to discharge him on the suppose 
" tion of madness. Henceforth, until the time of 
" the war, he neither visited any of the citizens, nor 
" was known to utter a word except his daily im- 
• precation of IVoe> woe, to Jerusalem. He neither 
" cursed those who were wont to beat him every 
" day, nor did he testify any thankfulness to those 
" who gave him food ; but he had one answer of 
" direful import prepared alike for all He was 
" the most vociferous at the festivals: and, though 
" he went on in this mannner seven years and five 
" months, he neither became hoarse, nor appeared 
<c to suffer any fatigue, until at length, having be- 
" held the verification of his presages in the invest- 
ie rnent of the city, he ceased. For, circuiting the 
" walls, he cried out with a loud voice, Woe, woe, 
" to the city, and to the temple, and to the people : 
" and, when at length he added, Woe likewise to my- 
" self, a stone, that was projected from one of the 
" machines, struck him, and immediately killed him; 
" insomuch that he died, while Sri the very act of 
" uttering his wonted ominous exclamations 
The same historian mentions another yet more ter- 
rific circumstance, which he asserts to have taken 
place not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
" At the feast of Pentecost," says he, " as the priests 



* Joseph, de bell. Jud. lib. vi. cap, 5, § S. p. 1282. 



( 370 ) 

u were going in the night to officiate in the inner 
" temple according to custom, they heard at first a 
tf kind of confused murmur, and after that a loud 

* and distinct voice as of a multitude exclaiming, 
" Let us depart hence*? 1 Much the same account 
is given by the Roman historian Tacitus. " The 
tc temple/' says he, " was illuminated with a .fire 
(: from the clouds : its doors suddenly flew open : 

* and a voice greater than human was heard, The 
£ - c gods are departing. At the same time a tremen- 
" dous noise was heard while they were issuing 
" forth f." From these various circumstances it 
was not unnatural for the Jews themselves to sus- 
pect that the God of their fathers had forsaken them, 
and to forebode their approaching fate. Josephus 
has preserved his own remarkable oration to his 
countrymen, previous to the completion of the dread- 
ful calamities that befell them. " You have not 
" omitted to indulge in secret sins, such as thefts, 
u stratagems, and adulteries; but you are emulous in 
:< the commission of rapine and murder, and glory in 
u the invention of neW modes of wickedness. The 
" temple is become the receptacle of all abomina- 
" tions ; and the sacred place, which the very Eo- 

mans revere at an awful distance, is polluted by 



* Joseph, ue bell. Jud. lib. vi. cap. 5. § 3. p» 128$* 
t Tacit. Hist. i. v. c. 13. 

1 " the 



( 371 ) 

H the hands of native citizens-— When the CafaylG-* 
" nian of old waged war against your ancestors, and 
" took and burned both the city and the temple, I 
" do not believe that their impieties were in any de- 
" gree equal to yours : so that I think, that God 
" hath withdrawn himself from his holy places, and 
" hath ranged himself on the side of your enemies. 
" Even a good man shuns the house of the wicked, 
<£ and hates those who dwell in it : can you then per- 
c£ suade God to dwell in the midst of your iniqui- 
" ties ; God, whose eyes behold every thing that is 
" hidden, and whose ears listen to things transacted 
" with the most impenetrable secrecy and in the 
" deepest silence * T: 

The remark was just. While the Messiah was 
divorcing the Levitical Church, he was making firm 
with many a new and better covenant. While he 
was rejecting his ancient people on account of their 
obstinate rejection of him, he was building up a new 
holy city to occupy the place of the former one. 
The truth of this the Jews themselves were com- 
pelled unwarily to confess. " There was a certain 
" householder, which planted a vineyard, and 
" hedged it about, and digged a wine-press in it, 
" and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, 
" and went into a. far country. And, when the 



Joseph, de bell, J.ud. lib. v. cap, 9. J 4. p. 124$, 1244. 

B b % 66 tim® 



( 372 ) 

f< time of the fruit drew near, lie sent his servants 
* c to the husbandmen that they might receive the 
i 6 fruit of it. And the husbandmen took his ser- 
" vants, and beat one, and killed another, and 
" stoned another. Again he sent other servants 
" more than the first; and they did unto them like- 
* £ wise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, 
" saying, They will reverence my son. But, when 
" the husbandmen saw the son, they said among 
" themselves, This is the heir ; come, let us kill 
M him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they 
iC caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and 
u slew him. When the Lord therefore of the vine- 
" yard cometh, what will he do unto those hus- 
" bandmen ? They say unto him, He will misera- 
u bly destroy those wicked men, and will let out 
" his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall 
- render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus 
" saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scrip- 
f< tures, The stone which the builders rejected, the 
" same is become the head of the corner: this is the 
" Lord's doing, and. it is marvellous in our eyes ? 
" Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God 
" shall be taken from you, and given to a nation 
" bringing forth the fruits thereof. And, whoso- 
" ever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken ; but, 
et on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to 
" powder*," 

* Matt, xxi 33—44, See also Rom. x. xi. 

VI. And 



( 373 ) 



VI. And in* half a week he shall cause 

THE SACRIFICE AND MEAT-OFFERING TO CEASE j 

(for upon the border shall be the abomina- 
tion THAT MAKETH DESOLATE), EVEN UNTIL AN 
UTTER END, AND THAT FIRMLY DECIDED UPON, 
SHALL BE POURED UPON THE DESOLATOR. 

1. The last part of the prophecy now only re- 
mains to be explained. We have seen, that the se- 
venty weeks expire with the death of Christ ; conse- 1 
quently they expire long before the siege of Jerusa-| 
lem. To this great crisis of the Jewish nation Da- 
niel has already been -hurried forward by his subject 
proleptically. He now, after having taught us what 
was to take place in the seventieth zveek, returns to 
it ; and specifies more particularly the abolition of 
the temple service, and the nature of the power by 
which (as an instrument in the hand of the Mes- 
siah) it should be abolished. He teaches us, that 
the sacrifice and meat-offering should be be caused 
to cease in half a week, and assigns as a cause of it 
the appearance of the desolating abomination upon 
the border. 

(1.) The great error in Dr. Prideaux's scheme is 
his considering this half week, in which the sacrifice 
and meet-offering were to be abolished, as the latter 
half of the last week of the seventy : whence, rightly ■ 
judging that the seventy weeks must necessarily be 
esteemed continuous, he is compelled to separate 



( 374 ) 

the abolition of the sacrifice front the appearance of 
| the desolating abomination, and to place it in the se^ 
ventieth week, supposing it to mean the spiritual 
I abolition of the Jjevitical sacrifices by the one great 
sacrifice of Christ. But, without mentioning minor 
objections, the very arrangement itself is hampered 
with difficulties which can never be overcome. The 
abolition of the sacrifice must, according to the only 
natural exposition of the context, so far synchronize 
with the appearance of the desolating abomination 
upon the border, as the thing that is effected syn- 
chronizes with the thing that instrumentally effects 
it * The appearance however of the desolating 
abomination is by our Lord himself fixed to the in- 
vestment of Jerusalem by the Roman armies: and 
it was so invested, first by Cestius, who precipitately 
and unaccountably (on human principles of action) 
withdrew his troops and thus afforded the Chris- 
tians an opportunity of escaping ; and secondly by 
Titus, who destroyed it. Therefore the abolition of 
the sacrifice and meat-offering must be the abolition 
of the literal temple service, which occurred not, 
many days before Titus stormed and sacked the 
city. Hence it will follow, since the seventy weeks 
are continuous, and since the last week expires with 
the crucifixion as being the last week of the se- 

f According t0 the I2th abstract position. 



( 375 ) 

venty\ that the half week, in which the Levitical 
sacrifices were abolished, cannot possibly he the lat- 
ter half of the last week of the seventy in the course 
of which the Messiah makes firm his covenant with 
many, but must be an altogether different and dis- 
tinct period, though similarly consisting of three 
years and a half Nor indeed are we any way ob- 
liged to suppose the identity of this half week and 
the last half of the seventieth week, notwithstanding 
many commentators do suppose it. Judging a 
priori, we either may, or may not, conclude them to 
be the same. The continuity of the seventy zceeks is 
equally preserved in either case. But the manner, 
in which the abolition of the sacrifice is connected 
with the appearance of the desolating abomination, 
plainly shews, that two entirely distinct periods are 
spoken of, the one considerably posterior to and dis- 
joined from the other. According to our common 
English translation indeed, one and the same period 
only can be spoken of in both places, because it ren- 
ders the original " in the midst of the week," thus 
referring us back to the seventieth week: but the 
original itself may as properly be understood to say 
" in the midst" or rather u in half of a week/' 
Hence Sir Isaac Newton, like myself, renders the 
passage " in half a week:-" and, however reprehensi- 

* According U> the 6th and 2d abstract positions 

bk 



( 376 ) 

|>Ie his scheme may be in other points, justly sup- 
poses, that this half week is not the half of the pre- 
viously mentioned week, but that it is an entirely dis- 
tinct portion of time. The same opinion is also 
maintained by Scaljger and Mede, the latter of whom 
similarly translates the passage " in half a weekV 
(2.) The express character of this insulated half 
week is, that it should bring about the abolition of 
the sacrifice and meat-offering by the hist r anient ality 
of the desolating abomination. Hence, since it is 
the period destined to effect such abolition, it must 
expire when it has accomplished its office. Conse- 
quently, it must be the three years and a half im- 
mediately preceding the abolition. And with this 
character we shall find that those three years and a 
half precisely accord. Jerusalem was taken in the 
beginning of September A. D. 70: and, some little 
time before, on the seventeenth day of the month 
Panemus which (according to Suidas) answers to the 

* I conceive, that I have a right to adduce Mr. Mcdc, be- 
cause, although he supposes the half week to be, a half of the se- 
ventieth week, he does not suppose it to be a half of the last men- 
tioned one week during which a covenant was to be confirmed 
with many. That one weekhe conceives, however erroneously, 
to be the last week of the sixty two: yet his interpretation 
equally serves to prove my point, namely that we are no way 
fcound to esteem the half week as the half of the preceding one 
peek. See Mede's Works, b. iii. p. 7Q6. 

July 



( 377 ) 

July of the Romans, Titus was informed, as we are 
taught by Josephus, that the daily sacrifice was dis- 
continued for want of persons to attend it * The 
subsequent destruction of the temple put an effec- 
tual end to it : because, since it was illegal to offer 
it in any place except that, it never could be renewed 
unless the temple were previously rebuilt. Now, if 
we reckon back three years and a half from the au- 
tumn of A. D. 70, we shall be brought to the spring 
of A. D. 67 : or (should we wish tq make our cal- 
culation with more minute precision), if we reckon 
back three years and a half from the seventeenth 
day of Panemus or July A. D. 70, Ave shall be 
brought to the seventeenth day oi, January A. D. 
67. Accordingly, at this very time the war, which 
produced the abolition of the daily sacrifice and the 
destruction of the city, commenced. In the 12th 
year of Nero A. D. 66, Cestius invested Jerusalem; 
but, instead of prosecuting the siege, he suddenly 
raised it. The Christians had to make their escape 
agreeably to tlie warning of their Lord, and the fated 
half week had not yet commenced : therefore the at^ 
tempt proved abortive, and the affairs of the Ro- 
mans in Judea seemed to be in a desperate state. 
Such, to the no small consternation of Nero, was 
the posture of things at the beginning of the 67th 

% Jostpl „ de bell. Jud. lib. vi. cap. 2. ,$ 1. p, 126(\. 

year 



( 378 ) 

year of the Christian era. At this time he appoint- 
ed Vespasian to take the command against the Jews : 
and the war was renewed (according to Sir Isaac 
Newton) in the spring of the year, or rather (as we 
may collect from Josephus) before the expiration of 
the winter * ; that is to say, it was renewed about 
the middle or latter end of January. Here then 
commenced the half week destined to bring about 
the abolition of the sacrifice : and precisely at the 
end of it, the sacrifice, agreeably to the prophecy, 
was abolished f. 

* Vespasian, upon his appointment to the command, 'sends 
Iiis son from Achaia to Alexandria for the purpose of bringing 
thence the fifth and tenth legions ; while, he himself, crossing 
the Hellespont, marches by land into Syria. Upon this Titus, 
havin» reached Alexandria with greater rapidity than was usual 
in winter (anvrspov y xulet xupwoq upetv), conducts the troops, on 
account of which he was sent, by forced marches, and joins his 
father in a very short tune (ha, raxvq) at Ptolemai's. See Jo- 
seph de bell. Jud. lib. iii. cap. 1. § 3. cap. 4. § 2. p. 1118, 1122. 

f This part of the prophecy is thus explained by Sir Isaac 
Newton. " And in half a week he shall cause the sacrifice and 
" oblation to cease ; that is, by the war of tire Romans upon the 
u Jews : which war, after some commotions, began in the 13th 
" year of Nero A. D. 67, in the Spring, when Vespasian with 
" an army invaded them ; and ended in the 2d year of Vespa- 
" sian A. D. 70, in Autumn, Sept. 7, when Titus took the city, 
" having burned the temple 27 days before : so that it lasted 
«« three years and a half." Observ, on Daniel, c. 10. p. 136. 

% But 



( 379 ) 

2. But it is said, that the prince that should come, 
or the Messiah, should cause the sacrifice and meat- 
offering to cease ; and the manner, in which he 
should cause it to cease, is described as being by the 
appearance on the border of the abomination that 
maketh desolate. The prophecy of our Lord, as de- 
livered by St. Luke, teaches us to understand by 
this expression the investment of Jerusalem by the 
Roman armies # , a subject on which he elsewhere 
dwells with much vehemence of affection f : and he 
himself, in more than one of his parables, plainly in- 
forms us, that the Romans were no more than in- 
struments in the hand of a great king to slay the 
murderers of his servants and to burn their city J. 

3. Yet, though the Romans might be mere in- 
struments in the hand of the Messiah, they under- 
took the work of destruction, not from any zeal in 
the service of God, but to promote their own ambi- 
tious views of aggrandisement and conquest. These 
desolators therefore are in their turn destined to 
experience utter excision. It is well remarked by 
Sir Isaac Newton, that " Daniel's prophecies reach 
" to the end of the world, and that there is scared a 
" prophecy in the Old Jestament concerning Christ, 
ft which doth not in something or other relate to his 

* Luke xxi. 20. t Luke xix. 41 — 44. 

X See Matt. xxii. l-~7— Mark xii f 9— Luke xx. l6. 

■■ second 



( 580 ) 

* second coming*." Hence, most probably with 
the design of making this prophecy homogeneous 
with all the other prophecies of Daniel, Ireneus, 
Hippolytus, and Apollinarius, interpreted the half 
week as relating to the times of Antichrist, and sup- 
posed it to describe the same period as the three times 
and a half making each day equivalent to a time. 
However untenable this exposition may be, because 
plainly irreconcileable with our Lord's fixing the de* 
solating abomination to meaii the Roman armies at 
the siege of Jerusalem, the idea itself of extending 
the present prophecy beyond the Jewish war seems 
to me to be perfectly just. 

The extension, of which I speak, will be found in 
the last clause of the prediction. The meaning of this 
clause has been greatly obscured, or (to speak more 
properly) altogether perverted, by translating the 
word D&W passively the desolated and applying it 
to the Jews, instead of translating it actively the de- 
solator and applying it to the Romans. Twice else- 
where, as I have already observed, Daniel uses this 
participle, and in both places in an active sense : in 
the same sense I think it sufficiently manifest that 
he uses it here also. He had previously foretold, that 
there should be desolations unto the end of the 
war. It is therefore somewhat tautological, and a. 

* Obscrv. on Dan. c. x. p. 132. 

sort 



( 381 ) 

sort of repetition, to say afterwards, an utter end 
ahull be poured upon the desolated. There is how^ 
ever a much more serious objection than this to the 
common interpretation. If the word W®W be. 
translated the desolated, and if it be understood of 
the Jews,the prophecy has never been fulfilled : and, 
what is more, consistently with another prophecy, it 
never can be fulfilled. According to the usual pas- 
sive translation of DElt^ the clause runs until a full 
end shall be poured upon the desolated, that is, upon 
the desolated Jews : and this full end has been sup- 
posed to have been poured out upon them either in 
the days of Titus at the conclusion of the war of 
seven years, or at least in the days of Adrian when 
they were completely broken as a nation. But re- 
specting all such interpretations it may be observed, 
that a full end has not been poured out upon the 
Jews. They still subsist as a distinct people, though 
scattered over the face of the whole earth ; and thus 
fulfil the prophecy of Jeremiah, " Fear thou not, O 
" Jacob my servant, saith the Lord, for I am with 
" thee : for I will make a full end of all the nations 
" whither I have driven thee; but I will not make a 
" full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet 
" will I not leave thee wholly unpunished*" The 

word, 

* Jerem. xlvi. 28. The same prophet elsewhere strongly* 
testifies., " Th us saith the Lord, which yiveth the sun for a light 

"by 



( 382 ) 

word, here used by Jeremiah to express a full end, is 
exactly the same as that, which Daniel uses to de- 
scribe the utter end that was to be poured out : the 
substantive f\b^ is alike employed by both pro- 
phets, and evidently in the same sense. If then a 
full end is to be made of the nations among which 
the Jews are dispersed, and if a full end is not to be 
made of the Jews themselves : it is plain, that the 
full end, which Daniel speaks of as being poured 
out, cannot, consistently with the prediction of Je- 
remiah, be poured out upon the Jews, but must be 
poured out upon the nations among which they 
are dispersed. Yet, if tZ)£W be passively trans* 
lated the desolated, none but the Jews can be intend- 
ed. Hence it necessarily follows, that it must be 
actively translated the desolator ; and must be un- 
derstood of that Roman power, whose armies had 
just before been described under the appellation of 
a desolating abomination, and through whose territo- 
ries the greatest part of the Jews properly so called 
is scattered. 

The clause, when thus rendered, concludes with 
a word of comfort, and a promise of final reconcilia- 

" by day and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a 
" light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves there- 
" of roar; the Lord of hosts is his name: If those ordinances 
" depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of 
" Israel shall also cease from being a nation before me for 
•« ever/' Jerem. xxxi. 35, 36 » 

tion, 



( 383 ) 

tion, to the afflicted Levitical Church, the divorced 
consort of the Messiah. The sacrifice and meat- 
offering are indeed to be abolished at the close of 
half a prophetic zveek reckoned from the commence- 
ment of a peculiarly devastating war, for the abomi- 
nation that maketh desolate is to be upon the border. 
Yet things are so to continue only for an appointed 
season, only until an utter end shall be poured out 
upon the desolator. When the set time of that aw- 
ful judgment shall be past, then shall the sacrifices 
be restored in a far nobler sense than they had ever 
before been established. The converted Jews, 
brought back to their own country, shall acknow- 
ledge Jesus as the Messiah ; shall be again owned 
by him as his consort; and shall celebrate, where 
they heretofore celebrated the typical sacrifices of 
the Law, the commemorative eucharistic sacrifice of 
the Gospel in spirit and in truth. Thus it appears, 
that, even in the very midst of predicting the deso- 
lations of Judah at the time of the first advent, this 
wonderful prophecy looks forward to a clay of retri- 
bution on the desolator and to the final conversion 
and restoration of God's ancient people* 

(1.) Such an interpretation of the prophecy is re- 
commended by various considerations. 

* Bp. Lloyd, like myself, translates o»Utf the desolator ; an4 
supposes the clause to contain a prediction of the future ven- 
geance of Cod upon the Rqman empire under its last bead. 

it 



( 384 ) 

It is absolutely necessary, as we have just seen, to 
reconcile the prediction of Daniel with the pre- 
diction of Jeremiah. Other expositions set them 
completely at varance : this makes them perfectly 
harmonize together. 

It exhibits Daniel in unison both with himself 
and with ail the other ancient prophets who treat of 
the restoration of the Jews. He elsewhere assigns 
the period of three times and a half, or 1260 
years, to the duration of the Roman power under 
the Papacy in its last or broken form ; and de- 
clares, that the scatterings of God's ancient people 
should be finished at the end of these same three 
times and a half, during a period of unexampled 
trouble, and synchronically with the overthrow of 
the wilful tyrant who was destined to identify him- 
self with the last head of the Roman beast *. 
The final destruction of the Roman empire therefore 
is contemporaneous with the conversion and resto- 
ration of the Jews. Exactly similar to this is the 
language held by the other ancient prophets. They 
uniformly represent the restoration of Judah as syn- 
chronizing with the overthrow of a mighty confede- 
racy of God's enemies, which, we are taught by St. 
John in the Apocalypse, will be composed of the 

* Dan. vii.25. xii. 6, 7, 1. xi. 45. But see my Disserta- 
tions on the 1260 years, and on the restoration of the Jews. 

Roman 



( 385 ) 

Roman beast under his last head, the false papal 
prophet, and the vassal kings of the whole Ecumenh 
or Bestial empire. Hence the Jewish Rabbies (and 
with great justice) have constantly pronounced, that 
the downfall of Rome would be the rise of Israel* 
In short, as Hosea assures us, that the " children 
" of Israel should tarry many days, without king, 
" and without ruler, and without sacrifice^ and 
" without statue, and without ephod and teraphim ; 
" and should afterwards return, and seek Jehovah 
u their God and David their king, and should adore 
" Jehovah and his goodness, in the futurity of 
" days -f :" so does Daniel here predict, that, 
through the instrumentality of the desolating abomi- 
nation, the sacrifice should indeed be abolished ; but 
that it should only continue to be so, until a full 
end should be poured out upon the desolator. 

It is the very interpretation of the passage, un- 
less I greatly mistake, which is given by our Lord 
himself. Part of his prophecy, as delivered by St 
Luke, evidently appears to be a sort of paraphrasti- 
cal exposition and application of the latter part of 
Daniel's prophecy. " When ye shall see Jerusa- 
" lem compassed with armies, then know that the 

* See these matters discussed at large in my work on the re* 
storation of the Jews, 
f Hos. iii. 4. 

C c " deso- 



( 386 ) 

il desolation thereof is nigh — For these be the days 
" of vengeance, that all things which are written 
" may be fulfilled — For there shall be great distress 
" in the land, and wrath upon this people. And 
" they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall 
" be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem 
£C shall be trodden down of theGentiles,until the times 
u of the Gentiles be fulfilled Here we have a 
solemn denunciation of the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem by the Romans ; a reference to the previous de- 
clarations of former prophets, particularly Daniel, 
as we are expressly informed both by St! Matthew 
and St. Mark ; a prediction of the scattering of the 
Jews among all nations, and the treading of Jerusa- 
lem under foot, which necessarily involve the aboli- 
tion of the temple service ; and a promise, that mat- 
ters should not alw ays remain in this state, but only 
unto a certain appointed time, until the times of the 
Gentiles should be fulfilled, the expiration of which 
times is universally allowed to synchronize with the 
expiration of the three times and a half. Now, ac- 
cording to the interpretation here proposed, our 
Lord's prophecy exactly corresponds with that of 
Daniel, to which he refers : but, according to any 
other interpretation, it does not correspond with it. 
In place of the compassing of Jerusalem with armies, 

* Luke xxi. 20, 22, 23, 24, 

we 



( 387 ) 

we have the appearance of the desolating abomina- 
tion on the border. In place of the great distress 
throughout the land and the falling of the people by 
the edge of the sword, we have desolations unto the 
end of a predetermined war and the end of the people 
with a flood. In place of the scattering of the Jews 
among all nations and the treading of Jerusalem un- 
der foot by the Gentiles, we have the abolition of 
the sacrifice and meat-offering. And, in place of the 
predicted period of desolation, until the times of 
the Gentiles be fulfilled, we have a similarly pre- 
dicted period of desolation, which is destined to con- 
tinue until an utter end shall be poured upon the de- 
tain tor. So accurate a correspondence between the 
prophecy of our Lord and the prophecy of Daniel, 
provided the present exposition be adopted, cer- 
tainly gives us reason to suppose, that the last clause 
in the prediction of the Jewish prophet was under- 
stood by Christ in the sense in which I contend it 
ought to be understood. 

Lastly, this interpretation sufficiently removes 
certain objections (built on the connection of the pro- 
phecy with Daniels previous supplication) to the 
general opinion which has been entertained relative 
to the seventy weeks, however commentators may 
vary in subordinate points. 

It has been urged, that the prophecy, having been 
delivered to Daniel in answer to his prayer and by 
cc ( 1 way 



( 388 ) 

way of consolation to him, might be expected to 
contain matter of a favourable nature, whereas it 
concludes with the most tremendous threats of utter 
desolation *. 

This objection is not altogether without weight ; 
but, by the interpretation here proposed, it seems to 
me to be in a great measure removed. As com- 
fortable an answer to Daniels petition is given, as 
could be given consistently with the truth. The 
Jewish polity, both ecclesiastical and civil, was 
broken by the Babylonian captivity. In the pro- 
phecy, a promise of its speedy restoration is held 
out, and the coming of the Messiah is definitively 
announced by the actual specificatien of a term of 
years. Both these particulars are comfortable in 
themselves : and, if the latter did not eventually pro- 
duce comfort to the people of the prophet, the fault 
was their own ; but the circumstance could not 
therefore be dissembled. Their rejection of the 
Messiah brought on their destruction. This doubt- 
less is not comfortable intelligence : yet, that it con- 
stitutes a part of the prophecy, we have been expli- 
citly taught on the highest possible authority, that of 
Christ himself. Nevertheless, though the abomina- 
tion of desolation should appear on their border, 
though their polity was to be a second time dissolv- 

* Dr. Blayney's Dissert, p. 59. 



( 389 ) 

ed, and though the daily sacrifices of the temple ser- 
vice were to be abolished ; yet this state of things was 
not to continue for ever ; it was only to remain for a 
certain defined period, already treated of in a former 
prediction of Daniel ; it was only to be " until an 
" utter end, and that firmly decided upon, should 
" be poured upon the desolator." Here the pro- 
phecy closes after a comfortable manner. Rejected 
and almost exterminated as the Jews should be, yet 
God would not make a full end of them, as he would 
of their enemies. In due time, at the close of the 
appointed term of 1260 years, they should be re- 
stored and converted; their great enemy the Roman 
empire, that had made their country desolate, should, 
in its last form, be utterly destroyed; sacrifices, far 
better and more spiritual, than the ancient Levitical 
sacrifices, should be offered up in Jerusalem ; and 
the latter end of the people should be better than 
their beginning. Thus it appears, that the sum of 
the prophecy is of a consolatory nature : and it may 
be added, that, even if it had been otherwise, it 
could not reasonably have been expected, that God 
should reverse the order of his decrees, or even 
withhold the foreknowledge of the afflictive part of 
them, merely on account of the piety of Daniel. 

But it has been further urged, that, although we 
might not be bound to expect a consolatory revela- 
tion in answer to the prophet's supplication, we 

might 



( 390 ) 

might at least expect that the revelation would be a 
reply to it. Now the supplication respects the re- 
storation of the Jews from Babylon: therefore the 
natural answer to it would be the promise that they 
should be speedily restored. But, according to the 
usual interpretation, " the petitioner is informed of 
il an event, very considerable indeed in itself, but 
<c not much to the matter of his petition ; namely, 
" that the Messiah should be put to death for the 
" sins of mankind; and that, in consequence thereof, 
" the city should after a while be destroyed, and the 
" Jewish nation and religion be finally put an end 
" to*/' 

It is obvious, that to the main part of this objec- 
tion the preceding interpretation is not liable, he- 
cause it exhibits the prophecy as foretelling neither 
the cutting off of the Messiah nor the final utter 
extermination of the Jewish people. And, with re- 
spect to the remaining part of it, the prophecy does 
contain an answer to Daniel's petition, though it 
Jikewise contains much more. Since the period of 
the seventy xv eeks must plainly be reckoned from the 
edict for rebuilding the holy city, a promise of that 
rebuilding and consequently of the restoration of 
Judah is necessarily involved : here therefore is an 
answer to Daniel's prayer. Additional cjrcum- 

* Dr. Blayney's Dissert, p. 12. 

stances 



( 391 ) 

stances are no doubt revealed : and what then? our 
Lord himself teaches us that the prophecy contains 
them 

(2.) Yet 

* Cornelius a Lapide, though he understands the last clause 
of the prophecy, as it is erroneously translated in the Vulgate, 
to mean unto the consummation and the end the desolation shall 
continue, advances an opinion somewhat similar to my own. He 
supposes it to be here predicted, that the desolation of the land 
of Judea will continue to the end of the world; and that Anti- 
christ will then rebuild the temple, and there receive the ado- 
ration of the Jews of whom he will make himself king. I think 
him mistaken in eliciting such an opinion from the clause now 
under consideration, and likewise in his belief of a personal indi- 
vidual Antichrist: but I am much inclined to suspect, that the 
opinion itself, though defective from its omitting to specify the 
final conversion of the whole Jewish nation after the overthrow 
and destruction of Antichrist, will in the main prove more true 
than the generality of protestant expositors have been willing 
to allow. 

Mr. Mede, like myself, thinks that this prophecy reaches to 
the end of the 126*0 days: though, as it appears to me, he de- 
duces his opinion from a part of the prediction which does not 
warrant it. He renders the last clause of the 26th verse vnto 
the end of war desolations are determined, and makes the follow- 
ing comment upon it: " until the end of the fourth kingdom 
" of the Gentiles, whose last period is that time times and half 
u a time, whereof it is said (Dan. rii. 21, 25.) that Antichrist, 
" the eyed and mouthed horn should make war with the saints, and 
*' prevail against them ; and they shall be given into his hand until 
tl a time and times and half a time. Until the end of this war 

" the 



6 



( 392 ) 

(2.) Yet it may be urged against this interpreta- 
tion, that the clause until an utttr end shall be pour- 
ed upon the desolator, ought to be referred to the irrw 
mediately preceding clause upon the border shall be 
the abomination that maketh desolate, which I have 
thrown into a parenthesis, and not to the first clause 
in the sentence he shall cause the sacrifice and meat- 
offering to cease: that the abomination, as explained 
by our Lord, has long ceased to be upon the border; 
and that an utter end has not even yet been poured 
upon the desolator, the Roman empire still subsist- 
ing in its broken form as it is elsewhere predicted by 
Daniel : consequently, that the last clause ought to 
be rendered until an utter end shall be poured upon 
the desolated, and that the desolated ought to be un- 
derstood of the Jewish nation, 

The force of such an objection has been already, 
in a great measure, broken by the foregoing obser- 
vations : nevertheless it may be proper to give it a 
distinct answer. The last clause mast be referred 
either to the one, or to the other, of the two prece- 
ding clauses ; and the word £301 tt? must be trans- 
lated either actively the desolator, or passively the 

u the Jewish desolations are determined/' Works. B. iii. 
705. 

He also deduces it, as I do, from the last clause of the 2?th 
v^rse ; though he translates the clause itself and indeed the 
whole passage differently, and (I think) erroneously, 

desdi 



( 393 ) 

desolated. Let us for a moment adopt the interpre- 
tation proposed in the objection, and observe the 
consequence of it. In this case it is foretold, that 
the Roman armies should not depart from the Jexvish 
border until an utter end should be poured upon the 
desolated Jews. But, if this were foretold by the 
prophecy, it has never come to pass ; for the Ro- 
man armies have long since been removed from the 
border, and an utter end has not been poured out 
upon the Jewish nation, inasmuch as it still wonder- 
fully subsists a distinct and separate people : nay 
more ; Jeremiah, using the very word here employ- 
ed by Daniel, has positively declared, that an utter 
end never shall be poured out upon that nation. 
Hence it is evident, that Daniel could not mean to 
teach us, that the Romans should not leave Judla 
until an utter end was poured upon the Jews. It 
will follow therefore, that DEW ought not to be 
rendered the desolated; because, if so rendered, it 
must relate to the Jews. But, if it ought not to be 
rendered the desolated, it can only be rendered the 
desolator, And, if it be rendered the desolator, it 
must relate to the Romans. And, if it relate to the 
Romans, then the whole clause until an utter end 
shall be poured upon the desolator cannot be referred 
to the immediately preceding cause upon the border 
shall be the abomination that maketh desolate ; be- 
cause the abomination has long ceased to be upon 

the 



( 394 ) 

the border, and an utter end is not even yet poured 
upon the Pcoman empire. Therefore finally the 
clause until an utter end shall be poured upon the de- 
flator must be referred to the first clause he shall 
cause the sacrifice and meat-offering to cease. Such 
accordingly is the manner in which I have referred 
it ; and on this account I have thrown the middle 
clause upon.the border shall be the abomination that 
maketh desolate into a parenthesis for the sake of 
perspicuity, conceiving it to point out the instrumen- 
tal cause of the abolition of the temple sacrifices. 

4. Upon the utter end that is to be poured upon 
the desolator Daniel bestows the same epithet, that 
he had already bestowed upon the Jewish war * : he 
styles it firmly decided upon. This I conceive him 
to do exactly in the same sense, as he had a little be- 
fore similarly designated the xvar. As the war was 
predetermined in the counsels of God, and expressly 
foretold by his holy prophets; so likewise was the 
utter end destined, to be poured upon the desolator. 
There is scarcely one of the ancient prophets, who 
does not predict itf : Daniel himself represents it 
as being the close of that portentous tyranny, which 
God had permitted to be successively exercised by 
four great empires ; and describes it, since the wilful 

* Vcr. 26. 

f See my work on the restoration of the Jews. 

king 



( 395 ) 

king is now plainly identified with the last head of 
the Roman beast, as synchronizing with the restora- 
tion ot the Jews * : while St. John, when closing 
the canon of Scripture, foretells it repeatedly with 
a most elaborate minuteness of detail f. The epi- 
thet seems to have been twice applied purposely, 
and (as it were) antithetically. Though the end of 
the Jews (that is, their end as a body politic, not as 
a nation) should be with a flood, and though desola- 
tions should be unto the end of the war /irmly pre- 
determined: yet, notwithstanding the success of their 
enemy, his eventual destruction was no less sure ; 
the utter end of the desolator was no less Jirmly pre- 
determined than the war itself. 

VII. It may not be amiss, at the close of my in- 
terpretation of this remarkable prophecy, briefly to 
recapitulate what has been said in the form of a pa- 
raphrase. 

1. JFeeks seventy are the precise period upon thy 
people and upon thy holy city, being the appointed 
time of 4£Q years during which the mystical Jerusa- 
lem, the Levitical polity, should be accounted holy 
unto God after its re-establishment. Within this 
period various important matters are to be accom- 

* Dan. ii. 35, 44, 45— vii. 9—14, 21, 22, 24— 27— -xi. 45. 
xii. 1, 6, /• 

f Rev. xiii. $, 10, xvii. xviii. xix. 

plished ; 



( 396 ) 

plished ; and, since it is the appointed time for the 
accomplishment of them all, its termination must 
be marked by the accomplishment of the chronolo- 
gically latest of them. It is appointed to complete the 
apostasy of thy people ; for, bad as their former ido- 
latrous apostasies may have been, the sum of their 
wickedness must hereafter be completed by a yet 
blacker act of apostasy. It is appointed moreover 
to perfect the sin-offerings, by the sacrificing of that 
great sin-offering of which all those under the Law 
were mere shadows. It is appointed also to make 
atonement for iniquity, to make that real reconcilia- 
tion between God and sinful man, of which the vari- 
ous legal atonements were only types. It is further 
appointed to cause the righteousness of the eternal 
ages to come, that personal righteousness, the just 
One of God, the Shiloh whose coming is the theme 
of so many of the ancient prophets. It is appointed 
likewise to seal the vision and the prophet, to authen- 
ticate* both this vision and all the other visions de- 
scriptive of the Saviour that should come, and to 
authenticate also the great prophet himself when ma- 
nifested in the fulness of time. It is lastly appointed 
to anoint the Most Holy One, to inaugurate with 
due solemnity the Saviour of mankind into his seve- 
ral offices of king, priest, and prophet. 

2. But know and understand, from the going 
forth of an edict to rebuild Jerusalem, from the 

enacting 



( 397 ) 

enacting of a decree to reestablish the mystic holy 
city, the now broken Levitical polity, in the seventh 
year of Artaxerxes which corresponds with the year 
4256 of the Julian period, unto the Anointed One the 
Prince, unto his official coming in the first preach- 
ing of the Gospel, shall be weeks seven and weeks 
sixty and two, or 483 years, the preaching of the 
Gospel by John the Baptist commencing in the year 
4739 of the Julian period. As for the mystic holy I 
city, it shall be rebuilt, with perpetual increase and 
firm decision, the re'establishment of the Levitical po- 
lity being carried on in spite of opposition by the 
firmness of those to whom the task shall be commit- 
ted, even in the short space of the times, in the 
course of the seven weeks or 49 years, the last act of 
reformation taking place about the year 4305 of the 
Julian period. 

3. And, after the weeks seven and the weeks sixty 
andtxvo, after the expiration of the 483 years when the 
preaching of the Gospel is to commence, the Anoint- 
ed One shall cut off by divorce, so that they shall be 
no more his, both the city and the sanctuary. Coming 
unto his own, he shall not be received by them : 
therefore shall he issue out a bill of divorce against 
his mystic consort the Levitical Church from the 
very first of his ministerial coming ; though, willing 
to give her time for repentance, he shall not immedi- 
ately ratify it, but shall suffer her still to be called 

the 



( 398 ) 

the holy city, until the end of her appointed times 
the 490 years, until she hath finally completed her 
apostasy. 

4. Marvel not however at this just severity. The 
people of the Prince that shall come, even the people 
of Messiah, shall act corruptly: they shall proceed 
from one wickedness unto another, until they fill up 
the measure of their iniquities by crucifying the Lord 
of life. But their end, as a body politic, though not 
as a distinct people, shall be with a flood, with a tre- 
mendous invasion of their enemies. And dreadful 
desolations shall be wito the very end of a war firmly 
decided upon, a war absolutely predetermined in the 
divine counsels. 

5. Yet, notwithstanding this divorce of his mystic 
consort, notwithstanding the miseries that shall 
thereupon befall his ancient people, he shall make 
firm a covenant with many for one week, even the 
last week of the seventy, by the ministration of the 
Gospel ; at the close of which, by his perfecting the 
sin-offerings and by his making atonement for ini- 
quity on the cross, he shall complete the last of the 
predicted particulars of the seventy weeks in the 
year 4746 of the Julian period. 

6. I have now explained to thee all the occur- 
rences that belong to the severity weeks ; but there w 
another important period wholly distinct from them, 
to which I must also call thy attention In half a 

week 



( 399 ) 

week he shall cause the sacrifice and meat -offering to 
cease (for upon the border shall be the abomination 
that maketh desolate ) even until an utter end, and 
that firmly decided upon, shall be poured upon the 
desolator. At the close of three years and a half 
reckoned from the commencement of the Jewish war 
by Vespasian (for such is the period required to 
bring about this great event) he will abolish the sa- 
crifice and meat-offering ; for Jerusalem shall be 
compassed by his instruments the Roman armies. 
Yet their abolition shall not be perpetual : it shall 
only continue until a full destruction shall have been 
poured out upon the desolator himself. For know 
to thy comfort, that he also in his turn shall experi- 
ence the vengeance of God. His utter end is no less 
predetermined by heaven than the war which he 
shall conduct against thy people. His fall shall be 
their rise. And at length the daily sacrifice shall 
again be offered up in Jerusalem in a more noble 
and spiritual sense than ever it has hitherto been. 



CHAPTER 



( 400 ) 



CHAPTER VII. 

An examination of the objections which may be made 
to the preceding interpretation. 

ThE objections, which may be made to the pre- 
ceding interpretation, have in a great measure been 
anticipated in the course of it : yet, for the sake of 
greater precision, it may not be useless or improper 
to give them a distinct consideration. 

I. The first objection, which I shall notice as be- 
ing the most important, is that which may be made 
to the mystic interpretation of Jerusalem, the ex- 
plaining the holy city, whenever it occurs in the 
course of the prophecy, to mean, not the literal town 
of Jerusalem, but the Levitical polity ecclesiastical 
and civil. In this explanation I agree with Dr. 
Prtdeaux : but Dr. Blayney strongly remarks, that 
" he can never be brought to acquiesce in it, whilst 
" a literal construction is admissible # »" 

This objection can only be made, either on the 
general ground that such an explanation of the holy 

* Dissert, p. 37. 

city 



( 401 ) 

city is altogether inadmissible, or on the particular 
ground that it is inadmissible in the present instance. 
The first is not pretended to be the case : the se- 
cond therefore must plainly be the basis of the ob- 
jection in question. We have only therefore to 
inquire, how far such an interpretation is warrant- 
able in the case of the prophecy of the seventy 
weeks. 

1. Were we to judge the matter abstractedly, it 
■would perhaps be difficult to assign any very satis- 
factory reason, why in this passage alone a figura- 
tive interpretation should be absolutely inadmissible: 
when in so many other passages, relating to the pa-* 
rallel circumstance of the reestablishment of Judak 
in the last ages, the rebuilding of Jerusalem must 
necessarily be explained in a figurative manner; 
and when we find James himself, in the case of 
least one prophecy, applying the imagery of re- 
building the tabernacle of David which was fallen 
down to the establishment of the Christian Church 
among the Gentiles*. With these apparently pa- 
rallel 

* " Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath de* 
" clared, how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take 
*' out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the' 
" words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will re- 
" turn, and will build again the tabernacle ©f David which igr 
" fallen down j and I will build again the ruins thereof, and 
i* I will set it up i that the residue of men might seek alter the 

Od * s Lord, 



( 402 ) 

rallel passages before us, it is, I say, difficult to con- 
ceive, why it should be thought so very unnatural 
in Daniel to represent the r ^establishment of the 
fallen Levitical polity under the same imagery. 

% But, unless I greatly mistake, a much more 
positive and decisive argument than this may be 
produced — It has been shewn, that the seventy weeks 
must look prospectively *. It has also been shewn, 
that, looking as they do prospective' ly, they must 
terminate with the chronologically latest of the cir- 
cumstances which are to be accomplished within 
their period f. And it has moreover been shewn, 
that the chronologically latest of those circumstances 
synchronize with the death of Christ J. Therefore 
the death of Christ must mark the termination of 
the seventy weeks — But, if the death of Christ mark 
the termination of the seventy weeks, then 490 years 
counted backward from that event must brin^ us to 
the granting of that edict to rebuild Jerusalem 
which Daniel specifies as the date of the seventy 
weeks. Now 490 years counted backward from the 
crucifixion bring us, with the minute exactness even 

" Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, 
e< saith the Lord, v/ho doeth all these things." Acts xy* 
13—17. 

* According to the 1st abstract position, 
f According to the 2d abstract position. 
I See Chap. vi. § I. 2. 

Pf 



I 



( 40$ ) 

of a month, to the going forth of the decree in the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes. Therefore this decree 
must be the edict to rebuild Jerusalem assigned by 
Daniel as the date of the seventy weeks — But this 
decree enacts the r ^establishment of the Levitical 
polity both civil and ecclesiastical, and is wholly si- 
lent with respect to the rebuilding of the literal Je- 
rusalem. Therefore the Jerusalem, which Daniels 
prophecy speaks of as destined to be rebuilt in pur- 
suance of that edict, cannot be the literal Jerusa- 
lem, but must he the Levitical polity or the figura- 
tive Jerusalem ; for no rebuilding of any other Je- 
rusalem is mentioned in the edict. 

(1.) To this argument two corollaries may be 
added — As Daniel's three times and a half are the 
times of the little horn, so by analogy his seventy 
weeks must be the times of the holy city. But, if 
by the holy city the literal Jerusalem be intended, 
its times, reckoning from the commencement of its 
rebuilding in pursuance of the edict of Cyrus to its 
destruction by Titus, were not merely seventy pro- 
phetic weeks or 490 years, but 605 years : whereas 
the times of the Levitical polity, from the beginning 
of its reestablishment under Ezra to its ceasing to 
be fhe holy city of God by completing its apostasy, 
are exactly 490 years. Therefore the Jerusalem of 
the present prophecy must be the figurative Jeru- 
salem. 

Dd2 (£.) Sa 



( 404 ) 

(2.) So again : Messiah is said to divorce the city 
and the sanctuary at the end of the sixty nine "weeks. 
This city must be the same as the city that is re* 
built. But the city divorced cannot be the mere 
town of Jerusalem, but must plainly be the figura- 
tive Jerusalem or the Levitical polity. Therefore 
the city that is rebuilt must be the figurative Je- 
rusalem likewise. 

To this it may be objected, that I deduce an ar- 
gument from my own particular interpretation of 
the passage : therefore, if the propriety of the in- 
terpretation be denied, the argument fails to the 
ground. 

That such is the case, I readily allow : but I 
maintain, that no other interpretation of the pas- 
sage is tenable — -Whatever be its precise meaning, 
it undoubtedly must relate to something that begins 
to take place exactly at the end of the sixty nine 
peeks — Now it can only be translated Messiah shall 
cut off-] or Messiah shall be cut off; according as 
JTD* is esteemed the future of Kal or Niphal — 
It cannot be translated Messiah shall be cut off 9 
because Messiah was not put to death at the end 
of the sixty nine weeks, but at the end of the seventy 
we?k$ ; a position, which necessarily follows from 
the crucifixion synchronizing with the chronologi- 
cally latest of the particulars destined to be accom- 
plished within the period of the seventy zveeks. Be- 
sides; 



( 405 ) 

sides, since the sixty nine weeks bring us unto the 
Messiah, they cannot likewise bring us unto his 
death ; because, in that case, no time will be al- 
lowed for his ministry. Nor is this all. Those, 
who adopt so incongruous an opinion, are still un- 
able to make the crucifixion coincide with the expi- 
ration of the sixty nine weeks, even after they have 
had recourse to the inadmissible mode of computa- 
tion by years of 360 days each — But, if the passage 
cannot be translated Messiah shall be cut off, it 
must be translated Messiah shall cut off— Now this 
translation is capable of only two meanings, cut- 
ting off by excision, or cutting off by divorce — The 
expression, as it here occurs, cannot mean cutting 
off by excision : because the Messiah did not by his 
righteous judgments destroy the Jewish state at the 
end of the sixty nine weeks, the time assigned in the 
prophecy, but several years after the expiration even, 
of the seventy weeks — Therefore it must mean cut- 
ting off by divorce — And, if it mean cutting off by 
divorce, then the city so cut off must plainly be a 
figurative city. And, if the divorced city be a figu- 
rative city, then the city destined to be rebuilt, be- 
ing evidently the same as the divorced city, must 
be a figurative city likewise ; and, by parity of rea- 
soning, its rebuilding must be a figurative rebuild- 
ing, 

H. Out 



( 406 ) 

II. Out of this corollary a second objection may 
possibly arise— The times of the Levitical polity, as 
the holy city of God, are seventy weeks : but. if the 
Levitical polity be divorced at the end of the sixty 
nine weeks, then seventy weeks cannot be said to be 
its precise period as the holy city, inasmuch as it 
would cease to be the holy city at the end of the 
sixty nine zwks, when it was divorced. 

I repiy, tnat, since a divorce is a legal action not 
thoroughly effected until certain appointed forma- 
lities have been gone through, whenever the term is 
used metaphorically in Scripture, we must suppose 
a close resemblance between the metaphorical di- 
vorce and a literal legal divorce. Now, when a 
wife has committed adultery, a certain time must 
unavoidably elapse, between the first step which the 
injured husband takes to procure a divorce, and the 
final pronouncing of that divorce by a court of law. 
So far then as a complete separation from bed and 
board is considered, the husband divorces his adul- 
terous wife from the first moment that he commences 
a process against her; but, in the eye of the law 
she is still his wife until the bill of divorce be duly 
executed, and the sentence of repudiation formally 
pronounced*. Exactly in this manner I under- 
stand 

* The law of divorce among the Jews plainly supposes, that 
a certain time would be occupied in preparing with due forma- 
lity. 



( 407 ) 

stand the Messiah's divorce of the Levkical church- 
He commenced his process against her from the first 

moment 

lity the proper instrument. " When a man hath taken a wife 
" and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour 
" in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; 
" then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in 
" her hand, and send her out of his house." Deut. ocxiv. 1. 

So accordingly in practice the Jews understood this law, 
" To prevent the abuse which the Jewish men might make of 
" this liberty of divorcing, the Rabbins appoint many forma- 
" lities, which consume much time, and give the married cou- 
" pie leisure to be reconciled. Where there is no hope of ac- 
<' commodation, a woman, a deaf man, or a notary, draws the 
" letter of divorce. He writes it in the presence of one ©r 
" more Rabbins, on Yellum ruled, containing only twelve lines, 
«' in square letters : and abundance of little trifling particulars 
" are observed, as well in the characters as in the manner of 
" writing, and in the names and sirnames of the husband and 
u wife. The substance of this letter, which they call Gheth, 
" is as follows : In such a day, month, year, and place, I N. 
" divorce you -voluntarily, put you away, restore you to your li~ 
ci berty, even you N. -who were heretofore ?ny wife, and I permit 
" you to marry whom you please. The letter being written, the 
" Rabbi examines the husband closely, in order to learn whe- 
" thcr he is voluntarily inclined to do what he has done. 
" They endeavour to have at least ten persons present at this 
<f action, without reckoning the two witnesses who sign, and 
* two other witnesses to the date. After which the Rabbi 
" commands the wife to open her hands, and bring them close 
ct to one another, in order to receive this deed, lest it fall to 
" the ground ; and, after having examined her over again, the 
" husband gives her tfte parchment, and says to her, Here is 

<« thy 



( 408 ) 

moment of her rejecting him, that is to say, from 
the first moment of the preaching of the Gospel : 
hence it is said, that he should divorce the city and 
the sanctuary exactly after the expiration of the 
sixty nine weeks. But the completing of the busi- 
ness was a work of time ; the sentence of repudia- 
tion was not finally pronounced, until the Jews spe- 
cifically rejected him, first by declaring that they 
had no king but Cesar, and afterwards by complet- 
ing their apostasy at his crucifixion : hence, in the 
eye of the law the Levitical Church being his con- 
sort to the very end of the seventy weeks, though 
the process of repudiation commenced at the end 
of the sixty nine weeks, her times, as the holy city, 
are still limited to seventy precise xveeks. When 
those weeks expired, the bill of divorce, which had 
been preparing during the whole of the last week, 
was ratified • and the repudiated Levitical Church 
ceased to be the holy city of God. 

III. A third objection may be made to the defi- 
ciency of proof, that the rebuilding of the figurative 
Jerusalem was completed exactly at the end of 

" thy divorce, I put thee azvny from me, and leave thee at liberty 
" to marry whom thou pleased . The wife takes it, and gives it 
<* to the Rabbi, who reads it once more ; after which she i% 
H free. Many little circumstances we omit, they being in- 
<e vented only to increase .difficulty/' Calruet's Dictionary, 
Vox Divorce* 

seven 



( 409 ) 

seven weeks or 49 years, according to the prophetic 
declaration that it should be rebuilt in the short 
space of the times, 

I might, in a degree, elude this objection by tran- 
slating the clause, with Dr. Blayney and our com- 
mon English version, it shall be rebuilt in times of 
distress, and by referring those times of distress or 
troublous times to the pertinacious opposition made 
to the work by the surrounding nations, and to the 
many vexations which Nemehiah particularly expe- 
rienced in his work of reformation from the Jews 
themselves. But I allow, that such an answer 
would not be quite satisfactory : because it might 
still be urged, and with great justice, that the sixty 
nine xveeks would have been expressed simply sixty 
nine weeks, not dividedly seven weeks and sixty two 
weeks, unless there had been some good reason for 
separating the seven weeks from the sixty two weeks. 
I will therefore freely confess, that it is impossible 
to prove from history, that Nehemiah's last act of 
reformation was accomplished precisely at the end 
of 49 years from the going forth of the edict in the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes. All that can be said 
is this, that we know it must have been accom- 
plished about that time. Could it indeed be proved, 
from history, that it was not then accomplished,, 
some doubt might be thrown upon the propriety o£ 
the interpretation here adopted : but its non-accom- 
plishment 



( 410 ) 

plishment in that year can be no more proved than 
its accomplishment. And, even if it could be prov- 
ed, it would not therefore necessarily overturn the 
■whole exposition. It would shew indeed decidedly, 
that the seven weeks did not relate to the rebuilding 
of the city, and consequently that the clause ought 
not to be rendered it shall be rebuilt in the short 
space of the times : but it would undoubtedly shew 
nothing more ; and the exposition itself might in all 
Its leading particulars be perfectly just, though we 
might not be able positively to say on account of 
what event the seven weeks were separated from the 
sixty two weeks. All things however considered, 
the evidence appears to me sufficiently strong to 
warrant our placing Nehemiah's last act of refor- 
mation at the end of the seven weeks. The sum of 
It is this. The seventy weeks, as I have shewn, 
must be reckoned prospectively. They must ter- 
minate with the chronologically latest of the circum- 
stances, which are destined to be accomplished 
within their period. They must therefore terminate 
with the crucifixion, because the crucifixion synchro- 
nizes with the chronologically latest of the circum- 
stances. Hence they must commence with the 
j;oing forth of the edict in the seventh year of Artax- 
erxes. Hence the sivty nine weeks also must ter- 
minate with the beginning of the Gospel ministry. 
Now in every one of these points we find an accu* 

rate 



( 411 ) 

rate coincidence. If 490 years, reckoned back- 
ward from the crucifixion, did not bring us to the 
enacting of any decree, we should then be sure that 
the crucifixion was not the last event of the seventy 
weeks, and that we had erred in supposing it to be 
so. But, when we find that it brings us, with the 
exactness even of a month, to the enacting of a de- 
cree to reestablish the Levitical polity, we may be 
tolerably sure that we have ascertained the intended 
period 01 seventy weeks. Sixty nine weeks however 
of the seventy are to bring us unto the Messiah. 
The expression itself, though it must mean unto his 
coming in some sense, is a priori ambiguous. Yet, 
if we find upon computing this smaller period that 
we are brought to no event which will in any man- 
ner quadrate with the expression unto the Messiah, 
we shall undoubtedly have reason to suspect, that 
the 490 years between the edict of Artaxerxes and 
the crucifixion are not the intended period of se- 
venty weeks, but that their numerical correspon- 
dence with each other is purely casual. If, on the 
other hand, we find, as we do find, that we are 
brought to an event which perfectly quadrates with 
the expression ; the sixty nine weeks (to use a tech- 
nical arithmetical term) then plainly check the se- 
venty weeks, and we arrive at moral certainty that 
the intended period of the seventy weeks has been 
ascertained. In this state of the case we are in- 

formed, 



( 412 ) 

formed, that the rebuilding of the holy city should 
be completed in seven weeks or 49 years from the 
going forth of the edict. Upon adverting to his- 
tory, we find ourselves unable to prove this to have 
been actually the case; but we do find ourselves 
able to prove that the work must have been com- 
pleted about that time, and we moreover know that 
the fact can never be disproved. Now, whether 
this deficiency of absolute proof] not the existence of 
any absolute disproof would be allowed in any court 
of law to outweigh the mass of positive evidence 
which has been adduced, may, I think, be very rea- 
sonably denied. At least, if this lack of absolute 
proof do outweigh the mass of positive evidence, I 
am at a loss to conceive by what laws of evidence 
the majority of historical facts are acknowledged 
to be moral truths. 

I may here observe, by the way, that, unless the 
holy city be understood figuratively, it is difficult to 
form any idea how it could be said to be rebuilt in 
exactly 49 years. We can determine when a tem- 
ple or a house is completely rebuilt, but how can 
we determine when a ruined city is completely re- 
built? What particular house or street must be 
finished to mark such completion ; so that, previous 
to the house or street being finished, the city was 
not completely rebuilt ; but, subsequent to the house 
or street being finished, the city was completely re- 
built? 



( 413 ) 

built? At what precise point shall we fix its com- 
pletion? When was the rebuilding of London, 
after the great fire, completed ? When was the re- 
building of Jerusalem, after its demolition by Ne- 
buchadnezzar, completed ? London has continued 
increasing to the present day. Jerusalem conti- 
nued increasing until it was destroyed by Titus. 
So much indeed did it increase, that it was very 
considerably larger, when its siege by the Romans 
commenced, than it had been even during the most 
prosperous reigns of its native sovereigns # . 

IV. A fourth objection may be made to the re- 
ferring the last zveek of the seventy to the period of 
the ministration of the Gospel first by John the Bap- 
tist and afterwards by our Lord in his own person, 
on the ground that this week is interposed in the 
midst of those parts of the prophecy which plainly 
relate to the Jewish war, the siege of Jerusalem, 
and the abolition of the temple service f . 

My answer is, that the arrangement of this week 
in the prediction is not unnatural, when we consider 

* " Jerusalem, from a mean beginning, repeopled with a 
u few impoverished inhabitants just returned from exile, was 
" enabled to hold up its head, and daily to improve in consi- 
* f deration and figure ; till it was advanced at length to such 
" a pitch of splendour, magnificence, and strength, as it never 
" had known before, even under the most powerful and inde» 
u pendent of its monarchs." Dr. Blayney's Dissert, p. 3S. 

t See Dr. Blayney's Dissert, p. 1 6, 

the 

4 



( 414 ) 

the preceding context Nothing is more common^ 
than lor a writer to be hurried ox* by some promi- 
nent ci. cumstance to anticipate the mention of cer- 
tain matters closely connected with it, afterwards to 
return to the point which ought in absolute strict- 
ness of chronology to have been first handled,, and 
then to resume in their proper place and with greater 
minuteness of detail the discussion of those matters 
which had already been touched upon proleptically* 
Exactly such seems to be the case in the present 
instance. The mention of Messiah's divorce cf the 
holy city&i the end of the sixty rune weeks naturally 
leads the prophet to state the reason of it, namely 
the gross corruption of the people : and the men- 
tion of their gross corruption, which was at length 
consummated in the rejection and murder of their 
anointed Prince, leads him no less naturally to fore- 
tell proleptically their destruction. But, before he 
enters into the particulars of that destruction, he 
checks himself, and returns to the seventieth week, 
which he had hitherto, hurried on by his subject, 
left unnoticed. Having specified that in this week 
Messiah should make firm a covenant with many, 
notwithstanding his divorce of the holy city, he re- 
sumes his account of that end of the Jewish nation 
which was to be with a flood. He teaches us, that 
by reason of the desolating abomination being upon 
the border the sacrifice and meat-offering should be 
5 abolished 



( 415 ) 

abolished in half a week ; which the context shews 
plainly to be a certain portion of the space of that 
firmly predetermined war already mentioned, to the 
end of which there should be desolations. And he 
concludes with declaring, that, although the sacri- 
fices should certainly be abolished, that state of 
things should not last for ever, but only until an 
utter end should in his turn be poured upon the de- 
sola tor. From this statement the interposition of 
the last week appears to be no violation of the rules 
of good historic writing ; and by such a test pro- 
phecy, which is simply anticipated history, must 
undoubtedly be tried. 

But it may further be remarked, that the present 
mode of interpretation, even were it less capable of 
defence than it is by the rules of good writing, must 
necessarily be adopted. That the end of the people 
with a flood and the unceasingly desolating war re- 
late to the destruction of the Jewish nation, is 
doubted by no commentator. The zveek then, dur- 
ing which the Messiah was to make a firm covenant 
with many, must either synchronize with the Jewish 
war, or precede it. It cannot synchronize with it : 
because, in that case, it must be completely sepa- 
rated from the preceding sixty nine weeks, and thus 
the continuity of the seventy weeks must be broken ; 
an hypothesis altogether intolerable *. Therefore 

* According to the 6th abstract position, 

it 



C 416 ) 

it must precede it. And, if it precede it, then the 
present mode of interpretation cannot but be 
adopted. 

V. Here however a fifth objection may be made 
to my considering the half week which brings about 
the abolition of the sacrifice and meat offering, as 
perfectly distinct from any part of the week during 
which Messiah is to make firm a covenant with 
many. For it may be urged, that the context of 
the passage most naturally requires us to suppose, 
that this half week is either the former or the latter 
half of the week just before mentioned. 

I reply, that the ground of their supposed iden- 
tity appears only in our common English transla- 
tion, which renders the original phrase " in the midst 
" of the week," instead of " in the midst," or rather 
" in the half of a week :" whence, according to such 
a version, the half week seems of course to be the 
half of the last mentioned week. But, that this is 
not the case, is manifest from the following conside- 
rations — The week, during which Messiah makes 
firm a covenant with many, being the last of the 
seventy weeks, must expire when the seventy weeks 
expire ; that is to say, unless the continuity of the 
seventy weeks be broken, it must expire with the 
chronologically latest of the circumstances destined 
to be accomplished within the seventy weeks*: but 

* According to th« 6th and 2d abstract positions. 

the 



( 417 ) 

the chronologically latest of those circumstances 
have been shewn to synchronize with the cruel* 
fixion ; therefore the week in question must expire 
with the crucifixion — -On the other hand, the half 
week, which brings about the abolition of the sacri- 
fice and meat -offering, must no doubt at its close 
synchronize with their abolition : but their abolition 
so far synchronizes with the appearance of the de- 
solating abomination, as to be caused by it*: there- 
fore the half xceek must synchronize with the ap- 
pearance of the desolating abomination, so far as it 
causes the abolition of the daily sacrifice. But the 
first appearance of the desolating abomination is re- 
presented by our Lord as preceding a siege of Jeru- 
salem : therefore, if not its short siege by Cestius, 
yet its siege which brought about the abolition of 
the daily sacrifice must take place in the half week 
— Hence it will follow, that the half xceek, in which 
the siege of Jerusalem by Titus takes place, being 
the half week which brings about the abolition of 
the daily sacrifice, cannot be either half of the week 
xvhich terminates with the crucifixion. In other 
words, the xceek, in which Messiah makes firm a 
covenant with many, must be a wholly distinct pe- 
riod from the half week which produces the aboli- 
tion of the sacrifice and meat-offering. 

* According to the 12th abstract position. 

E e Nor 



( 418 ) 

Nor need it be thought strange that a second dis- 
tinct period should be mentioned in this prophecy. 
It is usually indeed styled the prophecy of the se- 
venty weeks : whence apparently some commenta- 
tors have thought it necessary, though by different 
contrivances indeed, to make the prophecy termi- 
nate with the expiration of the seventy weeks. But, 
although such be the name which it usually bears., 
the circumstance most assuredly does not prove 
that the prophecy and the seventy weeks terminate 
synchronically. On the contrary, to me the pro- 
phecy appears most plainly to reach beyond the end 
of the seventy weeks ; and that, not merely to the 
close of the Jewish war, but, like all the other pre- 
dictions of Daniel, to the final downfall of the last 
of the four great monarchies*. 

VL There 

* It Las been objected to ScaViger, with sufficient absurdity, 
that, by assuming another period to be mentioned in the pro* 
pliecy besides that of the seventy weeks, he is adding to Scrip*, 
ture, and thereby incurring the denunciation of Rev, xxii* 18. 
That such is not the case, the most cursory survey of the pro- 
phecy is sufficient to shew. Seventy weeks are first mentioned, 
as being the precise times of the holy city, and as being the ap- 
pointed period within which certain specified particulars arc 
to be accomplished. Afterwards we read of seven weeks, sixty- 
two weeks, a single week in which Messiah was to make firm a 
covenant with many, and a half' week which was to bring about 
the abolition of the sacrifice and meat-oflering. Hence it is- 
Bjaaifest, that either seventy weefa only are mentioned in the* 

prophecy/ 



( 419 ) 

VI. There remains only another objection, which 
has already been so fully considered, that it may 
seem almost superfluous to notice it again : I mean 
the objection urged by some commentators to the 
mode of computation here adopted (which, by taking 
the intercalations into the account, makes seventy 
weeks of Jewish years equal in the gross sum to 
490 solar years), on the ground that the seventy 
weeks ought to be computed by lunar years of 360 
days each and are therefore equal to only about 
48:3 solar years. 

Independent of every other consideration, the 
prophecy itself affords an abundantly sufficient an- 
swer to this objection. We have seen, that the se- 
venty weeks must be reckoned prospectively. We 
have seen, that they must terminate with the latest 
of the six several circumstances destined to be ac- 
complished within their period. And we have seea, 
that the latest of those circumstances must synchro- 
nize with the crucifixion. Hence it will follow, that 
the crucifixion must mark the termination of the se- 
venty weeks. Now, if we compute backward from 

prophecy, or seventy weeks and an additional half meek subsequent 
to the sexent^Kcvksy according as the half week, and a half' of' the 
seventieth week are considered as being one and the same 'period 
or as being two distinct periods. \Vhich of these is the case, 
can only, as it appears to me, be ascertained by a discussion, 
of the prophecy. 

e e 2 this 



( 420 ) 

this era 490 lunar years, whether consisting of 554 
or 360 days each, we shall txot arrive at any epoch 
which can properly be considered as the date of the 
seventy weeks ; because their specified date is the 
going forth of an edict to rebuild Jerusalem, and 
no edict of any kind went forth at either of the 
epochs to which we are brought by these two modes 
of lunar computation. But, if we compute back- 
ward from the era of the crucifixion 490 solar years* 
we shall be brought, with the minute exactness even 
of a month, to the going forth of the edict in the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, by virtue 
of which the figurative holy city or the Levitica! 
polity was reestablished in both its branches. Nor 
do I conceive that this argument partakes of the 
nature of the circulating syllogism, merely because 
I thought it adviseable to discuss a priori and in 
the abstract the proper mode of computing prophe* 
tic periods. If once we can ascertain the termina- 
tion of any period the commencement of which ha# 
a specific date assigned to it, it is obvious that a 
retrograde calculation will decidedly establish the 
true average length of the years which compose the 
period in question. For, if we compute by years 
of a particular length, and find' that they do not 
bring us to any epoch which will correspond with 
the specified date; we may be sure, that those 
jears are not the years intended by the prophet. 

§ 



( 421 ) 

And, if we make a second essay and compute by 
other years of a different particular length, and then 
find that they bring us to an epoch which exactly 
corresponds with the specified date; we may in 
that case be sure that we have discovered the years 
of which the prophet meant the period to consist. 



CHAPTER 



( 422 ) 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Observations by way of conclusion. 

One can scarcely close a long-protracted discus- 
sion of this very interesting and important prophecy 
without offering a few observations upon it by way 
of conclusion. 

1. Many persons seem to have taken up a strange 
notion, that it is lost labour to attempt to explain 
the predictions of the Apocalypse and the parallel 
predictions of Daniel because their very obscurity 
shews that they are not yet accomplished; raid 
urge in favour of this crude idea, that, whenever 
they are accomplished, all obscurity will vanish, 
that then there will be no differences of opinion 
among commentators, and that they will be so plain 
that he that runneth may read. 

The examination of the prophecy of the seventy 
Weeks effectually exposes the futility of such an opi- 
nion. All Christians allow it to be accomplished ; 
accomplished at least so far, that the specified pe- 
riod must have long since run out, and that the 
predicted desolations must have come upon Jeru- 
salem : 



1 



( 423 ) 

salem : and all Jews must, inasmuch as it is in part 
a numerical prophecy, either allow it to be in a 
great measure accomplished, or deny its divine in- 
spiration. Yet there are few predictions, which 
have more exercised the wit of commentators; few, 
concerning which there has been a greater variety 
of opinions. Accomplished as it undoubtedly is 
for the most part, it is by no means on that account % 
so plain that it may be understood without the la- 
bour of investigation : he that runneth, the careless 
observer, is still as unable to read it, as he was be- 
fore its accomplishment. It is not difficult to point 
out the reason of this, and thus to expose the su- 
perficial notion of the perfect plainness of an accom- 
plished prophecy ; a notion, the genuine offspring 
(I believe) of indolence and hatred of trouble. To 
note the completion of predictions purely descrip- 
tive requires no mental toil. Idleness herself may 
compare the 53d chapter of Isaiah for instance with 
the history contained in the Gospels, and may be 
struck with the minute correspondence of the pro- 
phecy and the event ; for it is obvious, that to dis~ 
cover this correspondence not a grain of exertion is 
necessary : and, when both the common humour of 
mankind and the opportunities of the generality are 
considered, most thankful ought we to be to the 
good Providence of God. that such is the case. 
But ; when history is to be ransacked, when difficult 

chronological 



( 4^4 ) 

chronological prints are to be discussed, when syn? 
chronisms are to be ascertained, when the true 
meaning of obscure phrases is to be elicited, and. 
when the import of symbolical language is to be 
determined ; however richly the toil either of the 
commentator or of his reader may be rewarded, 
still such inquiries are and must be a toil When- 
ever the whole volume of the Apocalypse shall be 
accomplished, to the indolent and the supine it will 
still be as a sealed book. They may indeed thai 
fully believe it to be accomplished : but, as for the 
manner of its accomplishment, they will without 
labour be just as profoundly ignorant of it, as many 
Christians at the present day are of the manner in 
which the prophecy of the seventy weeks has been 
accomplished in the advent and death of the Mes- 
siah, though they may duly believe that it has been 
so accomplished # . 

2. The probability is, that the restoration, and 
conversion of the Jews is not very far distant. 
They would do well therefore to turn their serious 
attention to this remarkable prophecy contained in 

* It was excellently remarked by Bp. Sherlock, that <f q 
€ "* figurative and dark description of a future event will be 
" figurative and dark still when the event happens;" and that 
61 no eveiit can make a figurative or metaphorical expression 
" to be a plain or a literal one/' Discourses on prophecy. 
Disc. ii. p. 32, 3& 

their 



( 425 ; 

their own Scriptures. Prejudice may shut the eyes 
against the clearest circumstantial evidence ; and a 
Jew may be unable to discover in the predictions of 
Isaiah any thing that resembles the events detailed 
in the history of him whom Christians acknowledge 
as the Messiah. But the case is different with nu- 
merical evidence. Circumstantial evidence resem- 
bles moral truth, of which there may be an infinite 
variety of shades. Numerical evidence resembles 
mathematical truth, which admits of no shades i 
its boast is unity and perfection ; if it be not abso- 
lute unmixed truth, it is palpable falshood. A Jew 
may conceive, hard as it may be to a Christian to 
comprehend the possibility of such a thing ; yet a 
Jew may conceive, that the predictions of a suffering 
Messiah w r ere not accomplished in Jesus of Naza- 
reth, but that they will at length receive their ac- 
complishment in his imaginary Messiah Ben-Joseph. 
But the stubbornness of ?iumbers bids defiance to 
the mischievous ingenuity of the most determined 
prejudice. Either the Messiah must be come, or i 
Daniel was a false prophet. No other alternative 
js possible : no evasion is practicable. To every 
subterfuge, to every reply that can be painfully 
framed by the Hebrew writhing under the lash of 
incontrovertible evidence, the unbending rigidity of 
mathematical demonstration still proclaims aloud, 
Either the Messiah must be come, or Daniel was a 

false 



( M6 ) 

Jake prophet. Compute the seventy weeks as you 
i will; divide them, and subdivide them, as you 
please ; admit, or reject, intercalations ; take solar 
years, or take lunar years ; reckon from whatever 
edict you most affect ; perplex chronology as much 
tts you think proper ; curtail, with your brethren in 
the days of Adrian, the Persian monarchy by 200 
years, to put off the evil day of the expiration of 
these seventy weeks: still will the refractory number 
refuse either to bend or to break. Lon«; since must 
the fated seventy weeks have expired according to 
any hypothesis that can be contrived. How then 
can the Jews deny that the Messiah is come, con- 
sistently with their belief in the divine inspiration of 
Daniel? 

An anathema is pronounced against those who 
i presume to compute the prophet's numbers ! The 
language of the revealing angel is, Know and under- 
stand: the language of the modern teachers in Israel 
is, Cursed is he who attempts to understand/ Yet 
it was not always thus. The ancient Jews scrupled 
not to compute the mystic number: and it is plain 
that they computed it on the same principles that 
Christians do now. For how else can we so satis- 
factorily account for the uninterrupted expectation 
of the Messiah, which commenced about oO years 
before the birth of Jesus, as early as consistently 
with the prophecy it could commence, and which 

continued 



( 427 ) 

continued to the very desolation of Jerusalem? 
Loner since have the sacrifice and meat-offering been 
abolished, punctually as Daniel foretold. With 
what consistency then shall his prophecy be allowed 
to be accomplished in one point (and in this point 
it must be allowed to be accomplished), while it is 
denied to be accomplished in another point? If 
the sacrifice and meat-offering be abolished, Mes 
siah must be come : because his coming is plainly 
described as preceding such abolition. Will the 
Jew deny that they are abolished ? If facts extort 
the unwilling confession, how will he consistently 
deny that Messiah has indeed been manifested in 
the person of Jesus ? Let him now at length in 
these latter days seriously weigh this important pro- 
phecy: and let him jointly compare both it, his pre- 
sent condition, and his future expectations, with 
those memorable words of Hosea, " Many days 
" shall the children of Israel tarry without kino? 
(t and without ruler, and without sacrifice, and with- 
" out statue, and without ephod and teraphim : 
(i afterward shall the children of Israel return, and 
" seek Jehovah their God, and David their ki;ng l 
" and adore Jehovah and his goodness in the futu- 
« rity of days." 

3. Since Christians have such an irrefragable, 
such a palpable, proof of the divine mission of their 
§aviour ; let them beware lest they rest in a mere 

name, 



( 428 ) 

name, while they are ignorant of the power of reli- 
gion. The Levitical Church has been repudiated, 
and another and more spiritual Church has been 
espoused in its room. Let its members recollect 
the terms upon which they stand, and be careful 
lest their candlestick also be removed out of its 
place. Let them seek to inherit the promises in 
Conjunction with the converted of Judah, not pro- 
voke God to reject them when he brings back the 
captivity of his ancient people. " If some of the 
" branches be broken off, and thou being a wild 
u olive-tree wert graffed in among them, and with 
" them par takes t of the root and fatness of the 
u olive-tree; boast not against the branches. But, 
u if thou boast, thou bearest not the root but the 
" root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches 
" were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 
" Well ; because of unbelief they were broken off, 
" and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, 
a but fear. For, if God spared not the natural 
" branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 
a Behold therefore the goodness and severity of 
" God: on them which fell, severity; but toward 
44 thee, goodness : if thou continue in his goodness; 
6i otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they 
" also, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be graffed 
a in : for G od is able to graff them in again. For, 
u if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild 

" by 



( 429 ) 

" by nature, and wert grafFed contrary to nature into 
11 a good olive-tree ; how much more shall these, 
" which be the natural branches, be grafFed into 
" their own olive-tree ? For I would not, brethren, 
" that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest 
" ye should be wise in your own conceits; that 
" blindness in part is happened to Israel until the 
" fulness of the Gentiles be come. And so all Is- 
" rael shall be saved : as it is written, There shall 
" come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn 
u away ungodliness from Jacob — O the depth of 
" the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
" God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and 
" his ways past finding out ! For who hath known 
" the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his 
" counsellor ? Or who hath first given to him, and 
" it shall be recompensed unto him again ? For of 
" him, and through him, and to him, are all things : 
M to whom be glory for ever. Amen 

* Rom. xi. 17—26, 33—36, 



APPENDIX, 



( 430 > 



APPENDIX. 



No. I. 

THE ASTRONOMICAL CANON OF PTOLEMY, 

ARRANGED STKCHftOKICALLY WITH THE KINGS OF JUDAH AND ASSYRIA, TIFE H1GR 
PRIESTS OF JUDAH, THE GREEK KINGS OF SVRIA, AND THE PRINCES AND KIN09 
OF JUDEA. 



Kings of Babylon. 




A. /E.N. 


A. P.J. A. AC. 


Kings of Juduh. 


Kings of Assyria. 


Beginning of the 




1 


3967 


747 


12th year of Jo- 


Beginning; of the 


kingdom of Ba- 










th-'tm. 


kingdom of Assy- 


bylon. 












ria ; 1st year of 












Tiglath-Pileser. 


Kabonassar 


14 


14 


3980 


734 


9th year of Ahaz* 


llth year of Tig- 












lath-Pileser. 


Nadius 


2 


16 


3982 


732 


11th year of Ahaz. 


16th year of T.g- 












lath-Pileser. 


Chinzirus and 


5 


21 


3987 


727 


16th year of Ahaz, 


2d year of Salma- 


Porus 










and 1st of Heze- 
kiah. 


neser. 


Jugeus 


5 


26 


3992 


722 


6th year of Hezc- 


7th year of Salma- 










kiah; 


nescr. 


vMardoc Empadus 


12 


38 


4004 


710 


lStli year of Heze- 


5th year of Senna- 












kiah. 


cherib. 


Ark i anus 


5 


43 


4009 


705 


23d year of Heze- 


2d year of Esar- 












kiah. 


haddon. 


Interregnum I. 


2 


45 


4011 


703 


25th year of Heze 


1th year of Esar- 










kiah. 


haddon. 


Belibua 


3 


48 


4014 


700 


28th year of Heze- 


7th year of E^ar- 












kiah. 


h ad don. 


Aphronadiu8 


6 


54 


4020 


691 


5th year of Manas- 


13th year of Esar- 










seh. 


haddon. 


Eigebelus 


1 


55 


4021 


693 


6th 3 : ear of Manas- 


14th year of Esar- 










sen. 


naddou. 


Mesessirnordacus 


4 


• 59 


4025 


689 


10th year of Ma- 


18th year of Esar-» 












nasseh. 


h addon. 


Interregnum- II. 


8 


67 


4033 


681 


18th year of Mar 


26th year of Esar- 










, nasseh. 


haddun. 



( 431 ) 



Kings of Baby Ion arid 
Assyria united. 



Asaraddinus or . 13 
Esar-haddon 

Siosduchinus 20 

Chiniladanus 2 

^ ubopollassnr or 21 
Nebuchadnezzar 

the lather 
Kabocolassar or 
Nebuchadnezzar 

the son 

Elyarodainus or 
Evil-Merodach 

Ncricassolasiar 



*\abonadiu> or 
Belbhaziiar 



Km?* of Persia. . 
° " I 



Cyrus 
Cambyses 
Darius Hystagpis 
Xerxes 

Artaxerxes Longi- 

nianus 
Darius JVothus 
Artaxerxes Mne- 

mon 
Ochus 
Arogus 

DanusCodomannu; 



Qreek kings of Per 
sia. 



Alexander 

JPhillp Arideus 
Alexander Jbijus 



A.^E.N. A.P.J. 



80 

100 
122 
143 

186 

188 
192 
209 



218 

226 
262 
283 

324. 

343 
389 

410 

412 
416 



424 



431 
44S 



4046 

4066 
4088 
4109 

4152 

4154 
4158 
4175 



4184 
4192 
4228 
4249 

4290 

4309 
4355 

4376 
4378 
4382 



4390 

4397 
4409 



l.A.C. 



668 

648 
626 
605 

562 

560 
556 
539 



530 
522 
486 
465 

424 

405 
359 

338 
336 
332 



124 



317 

305 



Kings o/Judah. Kings of Assyria. 



31st year of Ma 
nasseh. 

51st year of Ma 

nasseh. 
15th year of Jo- 

siah. 

5th year of Jehoi- 
akim. 

37th year of Jehoi- 
chin's captivity 
2 Kings xxv. 27 
Jerem. lii. 31. 

47th year of the 
captivity of J a 
dah. 

51st year of the 
captivity of Ju 
dah. 

68th year of the 
captivity of Ju 
dah. 



High-priests of Ju 
dah. 



7th year of Jeshua. 
15th year of Jeshua, 
51st year of Jeshua. 
19th year of Joia- 
kim. 

30th year of Elia- 
shib 

9th year of Joiada. 
1 5th year of Joha- 
nan. 

4th year of Jaddua 
6th year ol" Jaddua 
10th year of Jad 
dua. 



18th year of Jad 
dua. 

5th year of Onias I 
17thyearofOniasI 



39th year of Esar* 
haddon, as kin» 
of Assyria, 



Greek kings of 
Syria. 



8th year of Selen* 
cus Abator, 



( 432 ) 



Greek lungs oj 
Egypt. 




A.^E.N. 


A.P.J. 


a.a.c, 


Ptolemy Soter 


20 


463 


4429 


285 


Ptolemy PhiladeJ- 

phus 
Ptol. Euergetes I. 


38 

25 


501 
526 


4467 
4492 


247 
222 


Ptol. Philopator 


1? 


543 


4509 


205 


Ptol. Epiphanes 


24 


567 


4533 


181 


Ptol. Philometor 


35 


602 


4568 


146 


Ptol. Euergetes II. 


29 


631 


4597 


117 


Ptol. Soter 


36 


667 


4633 


81 


Dionysius 


29 


696 


4662 


52 


Cleopatra 




718 


4684 


30 


Roman Emperors. 








A./E.C. 


A ugustus 

Tiberius 

Caius 

Clajdius 

Nero 

Vespasian 

Titus 

Domitian 

Nerva 

Trajan 

Hadrian 

Anteniaus 


43 
22 

4 
14 
1-! 
10 

3 
15 

1 

19 

21 

23 


761 

783 
787 
801 
815 
825 
828 
843 
844 
863 
884 
1 907 


4727 
4749 
4753 
4767 
4781 
4791 
4794 
4809 
4810 
4829 
4850 
4873 


14 

36 
40 
54 
68 
78 
81 
96 
97 
116 
137 
160 



lligh-priests of 
Judah. 



4th year of Onias II. 

29th year of Onias 
II. 

13th year cf Simon 
IE. 

15th year of Onias 
III. 



Princes and kings 
of Judea. 



15th year of Jona 
than. 

19th year of John 
Hyrcanus. 

25th year of Alex- 
ander Janneus. 

12th year of Hyr- 
canus. 

8th vear of Herod 



Greek kings of 
Syria. 



28th year of Seleu- 

cus Nicator. 
14th year of Antio- 

chus Theus. 
1st year of Antio- 

chus Magnus. 
18th year of Antio- 

chus Magnus. 
6th year of Seleu« 

cus Philopator. 



5th year of Alex* 
ander Balus. 

7th year of Antio* 
chus Grypus. 

3d year of Tigranes 6 



( 4SS ) 



No. II. 



*»CCtS8tON OF TBS fclNGS OF jtffiAfr, THE HlGH«=rftIESTS 6P JTVDAH, Aftf THE 
PRINCES AND KINGS Of JUDEA, PROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EftA OP 
NABONASSAR, A R ft A ><* C E p SYNCHRONICA tiLY WITH THE ElNOS OF BABYLON* 
ASSYRIA, PERSIA* EG YPTj SYRIA, AN© THE ROMAN EMPEROR*. 



Kings of Judah. 



Jotham 

Ahaz 

Hezekiah 



Mana3sch 

ArawoH 

Josiah 

Jehoiakim 



Zedekiah 



A. M. N, 



A.F J. 



i 
5 
20 
49 



104 
107 
138 

149 



160 



3967 
3971 
3936 
4015 



4070 
4073 
4104 

4115 



4126 



A.A.C 



747 

743 

m 

699" 



644 
641 
610 

599 



588 



Kings ef Babyla 



1st year of Nabo- 

nassar. 
5th yea? of Nabo- 

nassar* 
4th year Of Chin- 

zirus and Porus. 
1st year of Aphro- 

Radius"* 



Kings of Babylon 
ind Assyria united. 



•tthyear of Chinila 
danus. 

7th year of Chinila- 
danus. 

16th year of Nabo- 
polassar, or Ne- 
buchadnezzar the 
father. 

6tli year of Nabo- 
coiassar, or Ne- 
buchadnezzar the 
son, according to 
Ptokmy and Da- 
niel ; 8th, accord- 
ing to Jeremiah. 

17th year of Nabo- 
coiassar, or Ne- 
buchadnezzar the 
sou, according to 
Ptolemy and Da- 
niel 5 19th, ac- 
cording la Jcre 
taiim 



K'mgs of Assyria. 



1st year of Tiglath* 

Pileser. 
5th year of Tiglath* 

Pileser. 
1st year of Salma» 

neser. 
8th year of Esaiv 

haddoih 



( 434 ) 



Kings of Judah. 



Interregnum, caus- 
ed by the capti- 
vity subsequent 
to the destruction 
of the temple and 
city of Jerusa- 
lem. 



High-priests of Ji 
dah. 



Jeshuaor Joshua 
Joiakim 



ISliashib 

Joiada 

Johanarj 



51 



Oaias I. 

Simon I. (the just) 

Eleazar 

Manassefc 

Oaias II. 

Simon II. 

Onias JIL 

'Jason 

J£enelauj> 

Persecution of the 
Jews 



20 



A. JE. N 



21! 



264 
294 



334 
374 
405 



42(5 



44? 
456 
471 
497 
530 
$52 
572 
575 
530 
531 



A.P.J 



4177 



4230 
4260 



4300 
4340 
4372 



4392 



4413 
4422 
4437 
4463 
4496 
4518 
4538 
4541 
4516 
4547 



A.A.C 



537 



484 
454 



414 
374 

342 



322 



301 
292 
277 
251 
218 
196 
176 
173 
168 
167 



Kings of Pen 



2d year of Darius 
according to Scrip 
ture and Xeno- 
phon ; 2d year of 
Cyrus, according 
to Ptolemy. 



2d year of Xerxes. 
11th year of A<"t»x 

erxes Longima 

nus. 

10th year of Darius 
Nothus. 

lft year of Artax- 
erxes Mnemon. 
17th year of Ochus. 



Greek Kings of Per- 
sia, 



d year of Philip 
Arideus. 



Greek Kings of 
Egypt. 



Greek Kings of Syria. 



4th year of Ptolemy 

Soter. 
13th year of Ptol. 

Soter. 
8th year of PtoL 

Philadelphus. 
34th year of Ptol, 
- JPhiladelphus. 
4th year of Ptol. 

Philppator. 
9th year of Ptol. 

Epiphanes. 
5th year of Ptol. 

Philometor. 
8th year of Ptol. 

Philometor. 
13th year of Pk)l. 

Philometor. 
14th year of Ptol 

Philoraeter. 



12th year of Seleu- 
cus. 

21st year of Seleu-i 
cus. 

3d year of Antio- 

chus Soter. 
10th year of Antio- 

chus Theus. 
5th year of Ant}0? 

chus Magnus. 
27th year of Antio- 

chus Magnus. 
11 th year of Seleu- 

cus Philopator. 
3d year of Antio? 

chus Epiphanes. 
jBtu year of Antio- 
chus Epiphanes. 
Skth year of Antio- 
I chus Epiphanes. 



( 435 ) 



Princes and King: 
of Judta. 



Judas Maccabeus 

Jonathan 

Simon 

John ffyrcanus 
Aristobulus 
Alexander Janneas 

Alexandra 



A. JE. N. 



34 



587 
601 
013 
641 
642 
669 

678 

684 

707 
710 



744 



754 
759 



762 
773 



A.P.J 



4553 
4570 
4578 
4607 
4608 
4635 

4644 

4650 

4673 
4676 



4710 



A.A.C 



4720 
4725 

4728 
4739 



161 
144 
136 
107 
106 
79 

70 

64 

41 

38 



Greek Kings of , n , v . ,. c , . 

a j OrtT'v Kings of oijna^ 
1-gypt. 



2Qth year of Ptol, 
Phijoinefor. 

2d year of Ptol. 
Ivuergetes TI. 

10th year of Ptol, 
Euerg, II. 

10th year of Ptol. 
Soter. 

lllh year of Ptol 
Soter, 

2d year of Diony 
sius, according to 
Ptolemy, or 2d ol 
Alexander. 

Llth year of Diony 
si us, according to 
Ptolemy ; or llth 
of Alexander. 

17th year of Diony- 
sius, according to 
Ptolemy ; or 2d 
of Ptol. Auletes. 
llth year of Cleo- 
patra. 
14th year of Cleo- 
patra. 



Roman Emperors. 



2d year of Denies 

tnu* Soter. 
2d year of Deme-? 

trius JN'icator. 
5th year of Antio» 

c«!us Sidetes, 
17th year of Antjo 

ehus Grypus. 
18th yearofAntio- 

cl:us Grypus. 
5th year of 

granes, 



14th year of Tl- 



granes. 



A.^.c 



7 
12 

15 

26 



27th year of Augus 
tus. 



:37th year of Augus- 
tus. 

42d year of Augus- 
tus; 1st ofTsbe- 
rius jointly. 

1st year of Tiberius 
alone. 

15th year of Tibe 
ri us jointly ; 12th 
year alone. 



FINIS. 



Printed by Law and Gilbert, St. John'srsquare, London, 



Lately published, by the same Author, 



1. A DISSERTATION on the PROPHECIES, that ha^e 
been fulfilled, are now fulfilling, or .will hereafter be fulfilled, 
relative to the great Period of 1260 Years; the Papa! ami 
Mohammedan Apostasies, the Tyrannical Reign of Antichrist, 
Or the Infidel Power, and the Restoration of the Jews. 

The fourth edition, in two large volumes octavo, price in 
boards ll. Is. 

52. A GENERAL and CONNECTED VIEW of the PRO* 
PHECIES, relative to the Conversion, Restoration, Union, 
and Future Glory, of the Houses of Judah and Israel ; the 
Progress and final Overthrow of the Antichristian Confederacy 
in the Land of Palestine; and the ultimate general Diffusion 
of Christianity. 

The second edition, in two volumes octavo, price in boards 
:47s. 

N.B. The above, with the Dissertation on the Prophecy of 
the Seventy Weeks, completes the Author's Plan of Dissertations 
cn the Prophecies, which reach to, or beyond, the great Pe- 
riod of 126*0 Years. 

3. A DISSERTATION on the MYSTERIES of the CA~ 
BIRI; or the Great Gods of Phenicia, Samothrace, Egypt, 
Troas, Greece, Italy, and Crete; being an Attempt to deduce 
the several Orgies of Isis, Ceres, Mithras, Bacchus, Rhea, 
Adonis, and Hecate, from an Union of the Rites commemora- 
tive of the Deluge with the Adoration of the Hosts of Heaven,, 
In two large volumes octavo, price in boards l6s. 



Julj 31, iiib a 

SERMONS AND OTHER THEOLOGICAL WORKS, 

Printed for, and Ibid by F. C. and J. Rivington, No. 62, 
St. Paul's Church-yard. 

Agutter. Sermons on various Occalions. By the Rev* W. Agut- 
teRj A.'M. Chaplain to the Afylum for Female Orphans* 
8vo. gs. 

Apthorp, Difcouffes on Prophecy, read in Lincoln's Inn Chapel 
at Warburron's Lecture, by East Apthorp, D. D. late Rector 
of St. Mary Lc Bow. 2 vols, 8vo. 10s. 

Eandinel. Eight Sermons, preached at the Bampton Lecture in 
1780* by James Band in el, D.D. of Jefus College. Second 
edition. 8vo. 6s. 

Iarrow. Eight Sermons, containing Ahfwers to fbme popular Ob- 
jections againil the Chriftian Revelation, preached at the Bamp- 
ton Lecture in 1799. By William Barrow, LL. D. and 
F.S. A. of Queen's College. 8vo. 7s. 

IIenson. Sermons on various Subjects, Moral and Theological, by 
Martin Benson, A. M. Minifter of Tunbridge Wells ChapeL 
8vo. 6s 

Berkeley. Sermons, by the late George Berkeley, LL. D. 

Prebendary of Canterbury. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
Bishop. Sermons, chief] v on practical Subjects, by the Rev. Sam. 

Bishop, A.M. late Head Mailer of Merchant Taylors School. 

8vo. 6s. 

JSr a ckenbury. Fifty-three Difcourfes, containing a connected 
Syftem of Doctrinal and Practical ChrilHanity ; for Families 
and Country Congregations. By the Rev. Edward Bracken- 
bury, A.B. Vicar of Skindleby, in the County of Lincoln. 
12 vols. 8vo. 15s. 

Srewster. Lectures on the Acts of the Apoftles, delivered in the 
Pariih Church of Stockton-upon-Tees, during Lent, in the Years 
1 H 03 i 1804, iSoc, and 1806; with three Maps of the Travels 
of the Holy Apoities; By John Brewster, M.A. Rector of 
Boldon, &c. Durham. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 

Burnaby. Occafional Sermons and Charges, by the Rev. Andrew 
Burn a by, D. D. Archdeacon of Leiccder^ and Vicar of Green- 
wich. 8vo. 1 os. 6di 
1 Carr. Sermons, by the late Rev. George Carr, Senior Clergy- 
man of the Englilh Epifcopal Congregation in Edinburgh. 
2 vols. 1 2 mo. 7s. 

Clarke. Forty Sermons on Doctrinal and. Practical Subjects, re- 
lented from the Works of the Rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke, for 
the Ufe of Families. By the Rev. Samuel Clapham, M. A. 
Chaplain to Earl Camden. 8vo. 9s. 

Clarke. Sermons on the Character and profefiional Duties of Sea- 
men, preached on board H. M. S. Impetueux, py James St a ni er 
Ci. arke, F. R.S, Domeilic Chaplajp to M.R.H. the Prince of 

CjbSATEKj 



2 Becks printed far F. C, and j. RivingtON. 

Clearer. Eleven Sermons on SeJecl Subjefts, by William, Lord 
Bifhop oi St. Asap>h : alfo lour Sermons of the late William 
Cleaver, M. A. of Lincoln College. 8vo. 9s. 
Cleeve. Select Sermons, dedicated to the Queen, by the Rev. 
Alex. Cleeve, A.B. late Vicar of Wooller, in Northum- 
berland. Svo. ios. 6d. 
Clements. Eight Sermons, preached (at Lady Mover's Lecture) 
in St. Paul's Cathedral in 1 757, by William Clements, A.M. 
late Librarian at Sion College. Svo. 4s. 
Cov/e. Twelve Sermons on the Advantages which refult from 
ClVriftianity, &c. for the Ufe of Families ; to which are added, 
Philanthropic Tracts. By James Cowe, M. A. Vicar of Sun- 
bury. Second edition. Svo. 6s. 
Daubeny. Eight Difcourfes on the Connection between the Old 
and New Teftanient, confidered as two Parts of the fame Di- 
vine Revelation, &c. &c. by the Rev. Charles Daubeny, 
Archdeacon of Sarum. 8vo. 95. 

• Difcourfes on various Subjects and Occafions, by the fame 

Author. Vol. II. Svo. 8s. 
Delany's Sixteen Difcourfes upon Chrillian Doclrine and Duties. 
Svo. 5s. 

Drummonr. Sermons on public Occafions, and a Letter on Theo- 
logical Study, by Robert, late Archbifhop of York ; with 
Memoirs of his Life, by G. H. Drummond, A. M. Prebendary 
of York. Svo. 6s. 
Farquhar. Sermons on various Subjects, by the late John Far- 

quhar, M.A. Miniftef at Nigg. Fourth edition. 8vo. 6s. 
Farrer. Sermons on the Parables, a new edition; the whole Series 
recompofed, and contained in one volume. By John Farrer, 
M.A. Reclor of the United Parifhes of St. Clement, Eaftcheap, 
and St. Martin Orgars. Svo. 9s. 

- Sermons on the Million and Character of Chrift, and the 

Beatitudes; preached at the Bampton Le&ure'in 1803, by the 
fame Author. 8vo. 7s. 
Gardiner. Sermons on various Subjects, preached at the Octagon 
Chapel, Bath, by the Rev. John Gardiner, D. D. Reftoi of 
Braifsford, and Vicar of Shirley, in the County of Devon. Se- 
cond Coition. Svo. 8s. 
Gilson. Sermons on practical Subjecls, by the Rev. D. Gilson, 
M.A. late Curate of St. Saviour's, Southwark. 2 vols. 
8vo. 1 6s. 

Oleic Sermons, preached occafionally at- the Epifcopal Chapel, 
Stirling, during the eventful Period, from 1793 to 1803, by the 
Right Rev. Biftiop Gleig. 8vo. 7s. 

Goddard. Sermons, preached before the Univerfity of Cambridge, 
by P. S. Goddard, D.D. late Mailer of Clare Hall. 8yo. 5s. 

Gordon. Sermons on feveral Subjecls and Occafions, particularly 
on the Feftivals and Fafts of the Church o{ England, by the 
Rev. Sir A. Gordon, Bart. M.A. Re&or of Weft Tilbury, 
Elfex. Svo. Graves. 



Books printed for F. C. avd J. Rivington. 



Graves. Sermons on the Clerical Character, on Miracles, &c. &c. 
by the late Rev. Richard Graves, M.A. Rector of Claver- 
tori, SomeiTet. 8vo. 5s. 
Gray. Difcourfes on various Subjects, illuftrative of the Evidence, 
Influence, and Doctrines of Christianity, by the Rev. Robert 
Gray, D. D. Prebendary of Durham. 8vo. 6s. 
■' Sermons on the Principles upon which the Reformation of the 

Church of England was eftabliihed, preached at the Bampton 
Lecture in 1796 ; by the fame Author. 8vo. 6s. 

Haggitt. Sermons to Country Congregations, by the late Rev. 
George Haggitt, A.M. Rector of Beechamwell, Norfolk. 
Sixth edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 

Hervey. Sermons, Tracts, and Letters, by James Hervey, A.M. 
late Rector of Wefton Favell, Northamptonfhire. 4 vols. 8vo. 
il. 4s. 1 

Hewlett. Sermons on different Subjects, by the Rev. John Hew- 
lett, B. D. Morning Preacher at the Foundling Hofpital. 
3 vols. 8vo. il. cs. 

Heylyn. Select Difcourfes on. the principal Points of natural and 
revealed Religion ; alio, Theological Lectures on the ten firft 
Chapters of St. Matthew. By John Heylyn, D. D. late 
Prebendary of Weftminflcr. 2 vols. 8vo. 12s. 

Horne. Sermons, and other Works of George Horne, D,D. 
late Lord Bimop of Norwich ; handfomely printed in 6 vols. 
8vo. 3I. 3s. 

Horsley. Sermons, by Samuel Horsley, LL.D. F.R.S. F.A.S. 
late Lord Bifhop of St. Afaph. 2 vols. 8vo. il. is. 

Innes. Fourteen Difcourfes on practical Subjects, by the Rev, G. 
Innes, of Aberdeen, 1 21710. 3s. 

JottEs. Sermons, and other Works, Theological and Mifcellaneous, 
of the late Willi'am Jones, M.A. F. R.S. Rector of Pafton, 
Northamptonshire, and Minifter of Nayland, in Suffolk. A new 
edition, in 6 vols. 8vo. 3I. 3s. 

• Four Difcourfes ; j. On the Religious Ufe of Botanical Phi- 

lofophy. 2. Confiderations on the Nature and Economy of 
Beaits and Cattle. 3, On the Natural Hiltory of the Earth 
and its Minerals. 4. On the Natural Evidences of Christianity, 
pareached on Mr. Fairchild's Foundation, in 1784,, 5, 6, and 7 3 
by the fame Author. i2mo. 23. 6d. 

Jortin. Sermons on different Subjects; to which are added, the 
Doctrine of a Future State, 4s it may be collected from the 
Old Teftament ; and four Charges to the Clergy of the Arch- 
deaconry cf London. By the late Rev, John Jortin, D.D, 
Archdeacon of London, &c. A new edition. 4 vols. 8vo, 
ih 1 6s. 

' Difcourfes concerning the Truth of the Chriftian ReligioR, 

and Remarks on Eccleliaftical Hiftory. By the fame AxUthor» 
A new edition. 3 vols. 8vo. 1I.4S. 

Reeling's (Rev. Barth.) Eight Difcourfes. 8vo. 4s, 

Kett. 



^ Books printed for F. C. and J. Riving ton. 

Kett. Eight Sermons, containing' a Reprefentation of the Conduct 
and Opinions of the primitive Chififtians, with Remarks on 

certain Aflertions of Mr. Gibbon and Dr. Prieftlcy ; preached 

at the Bampton Le&ure in 1790, by Henry Kett, M.A. 

Fellow of Trinity College. Second edition. 8vo. 7s. 
Layard. Sermons, by Charles Peter Layard, D,D. F.R.S. 

F. A, S. late Dean of Brillol. Second edition. 8vo. 123. or 

on royal paper ii. is. 
Leighton's iAbp.) Eighteen Sermons, 8vo. 5s. 
Logan. Sermons, by the late Rev. John Logan, F.R. S. Edinb. 

one of the Minifters at Leith. Fifth edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 15s. 
Macdonald. Twenty- nine mifcellaneous Sermons, by A. Macdo^ 

nald, late Minifterof the Englifh Church at Glafgow. 8vo. 5s. 
Milne. Sermons, 'delivered in St. Andrew's Chapel, Banff, by the 

Rev. James Milne, A.M. Miniver of that Chapel. 8vo. 

7s. 6d. 

Morgan. Sermons on feveral Subjects, by John' Pilkington 
Morgan, M f A. late Vicar of Hitchin, Herts. 2 vols, crown 
8vo. 9s. 

Morton. Sermons on various interefting Subjects, by the Rev. 
Joshua Morton, Vicar of Rifely, in the County of Bedford. 
8vo. 7s. 

Nance. Sermons on various Subjects and Occafions, by the Rev. 
John Nance, M.A. Fellow of Worcefter College, Oxford. 
8vo, 6s. 

Nares. Difcourfes before the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn, by 
the Rev. Robert Nares, A.M. F.R.S. F. A.S. Archdeacon 
of Stafford, Sec. 8vo. 7s. 
A connected and chronological View of the Prophecies re- 
lating to the Chriitian Church ; in twelve Sermons, preached in 
Lincoln's Inn Chapel, from 1800. to 1804, at Bp. Warburton's 
Lecture, by the fame Author. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Nares. Sermons, compofed for Country Congregations, by the Rev. 
Edward Nares, A.M. Redtor of Biddenden > Kent. 8v©> 7s. 

Neve. Seventeen Sermons, compofed for a Country Congregation, 
by the Rev. Timothy Neve, D.D. late Lady Margaret's 
ProfelTor of Divinity in the. Univerfity of Oxford. - 8vo. 6s. 

O'Beirne. Sermons on feveral Occafions; to which are added three 
Charges, and a circular Addrefs to the Clergy of the Diocefe of 
OfTory, on the State of Ireland in 1787 ; by T. L. O'Beirne, 
D.D. Lord Bifhop of Meath; 8vo. 6s. 

Owen. The Intent and Propriety of the Scripture Miracles con- 
sidered and explained, in a Series of Sermons, for the Hon. R„ 
Boyle's Leclure in 1769, 70, and 71, by the Rev, Dr. Henry 
O'wen, late Reftor of St. Olave, Plart-Street. 2 vols. 8 vo. 10s. 

Fartridge. Sermons, altered and adapted to the Englifh Pulpit, 
from French Writers, by the Rev. Samuel Partridge, M.A, 
FcS. A. Vicar of Bofton. 2 vols, 8vo. ics. 
N* &, The volumes ase fold feparately. 



Books printed far F. C. mid J. Rivingtov. 



5 



JPlumptre. The Christian Guide, or an Attempt to explain, in a 
Series of connected Difcourfes, the leading Articles of Chris- 
tianity ; for the Ufe of Families and young Perfohs. By 
Charles Plumptre, M. A. Fvector of Long Newton, in the 
County of Durham. 8vo, 7s, 

Plumptre. Four Difcourfes on Subjects relating to the Amufement of 
the Stage ; preached at Great St. Mary's Church, Cambridge; 
with copious Notes. By James Plumptre, B,D. Fellow of 
Clare Hail. 8vo. 7s, 

Pott. Three Sermons for the Feftivals and Fails of the Church of 
England, with a Difcourfe on the Lord's Day, or Chriftian 
Sabbath. By Joseph Holden Pott, M. A. Prebendary <*f 
Lincoln, and Archdeacon of St. Alban's. i2mo. 2s. 

f- Elementary Difcourfes, defigned for the Ufe of a young Per- 

fon after Confirmation ; with Devotions, {elected chiefly from 
the Book of Common Prayer. By tfce fame Author. ii>mo. 2s. 

Ramsay's (Rev. J.) Sea Sermons, or a Series of Difcourfes for ths 
Ufe of the Royal Navy. 8vo. 4s. 

Randolph. Sermons, preached at Laura Chapel, Bath, during the 
Seafon of Advent in 1799. By the Rev. F. Randolph, D.D. 
Prebendary of Briftol. 8vo. 6s. 

Rennell. Sermons, on various Subjects, by Thomas Rennell, 
D.D. Dean of Winchester, and Matter of the Temple. 8vo. 7s. 

Riddoch. Sermons., on feveral Subjects and Occafions. By the 
late James Riddoch, A. M. one of the Minifters of St. Paul'* 
Church, Aberdeen. Third edition. 3 vols. Svo. il. is. 

Robertson. Sermons on the practical Obligations of a Chriftias 
Life; for the Use of Families. By the Rev. Theodore 
Rob ertson, LL. B. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 

Scattergood. Fifty-two Sermons upon feveral Occafions. By 
Samuel Scattergood. A new edition. 2 vols'. 8 vo. 1L4S. 

Secker. Sermons, on various Subjects, by Thomas Secksr, LL,P t 
late Lord Archbifhop of Canterbury. 4 vols. 8vo. il. 

South gate. Sermons, preached to Parochial Congregations, by 
the late Rev. Richard Southcate, B. A. with a Biogra- 
phical Preface, by George Gaskin, D.D. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s, 

Stebbing. Sermons on practical Subjects, by the late Rev. Henrt 
Ste being, D.D. Preacher to the Hon. Society of Gray's Ini| f 
3 vols. 8vo. 1 8s. 

A r . B, The third volume may be had feparate. 6s, 

Sterne's (Rev. Lawrence) Sermons. 6 vols, feoicf. Svo. 15s. 

Stephenson. The Romilh Church ; or, an Hlftofical and Critical 
View of fome of the leading Doctrines of the Church of Rome, 
in a Series of Difcomfe?, preached at Bimop's Weafmoath, in 
1806; being, partly, a Compilation from Secker, and ethers, 
with "r\ T otes. By the Rev. Geokge Stephenson, M. A. Vicar 
of Kelloe, and Curate of Buhop's Wcarmoath, Ehirham. §to. 

Stevens, 



6 Books printed for F. C. a?id J. Rivington. 

Stevens. Sermons, by the late William Stevens, D. D. Reftor 
of Great Snoring Norfolk, and Leclurer of St. George's, Han- 
over Square. 3 vols. 8vo. ll. is. 

Thomas. Sermons and Charges of the Right Rev. JeHN Thomas, 
LL. D. late Lord Bifhop of Rochefter ; with a Life of the 
Author, by G. A. Thomas, A.M. Reftor of Wickham, Hants. 
2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 

Townson. The Works of the Rev. Thomas Townson, D.D. 

, late Archdeaeon of Richmond, &e. confifting of Difcourfes on 
the Gofpels, and on the Evangelical Hiftory, &c. Sec. to which 
is prefixed, an Account of the Author, by Ralph Churton, 
M. A. Archdeacon of St. David's, &c. &c. A new edition, 
with tw6 plates. 2 vols. 8vo. 18s. 

Tucker. Seventeen Sermons on fome of the mod important Points 
on Natural and Revealed Religion, refpecling the Happinefs 
both of the prefent and of a future Life. By Josiah Tucker, 
D.D. late Dean of Glocefter. 8vo. 5s. 

Van Mildert. An Hiftorical View of the Rife and Progrefs of 
Infidelity, with a Refutation of its Principles and Reafonings ; 
in a Series of Sermons, preached for the Hon. R. Boyle's Lec- 
ture, from 1802 to 1805. By the Rev. William Van Mil. 
pert, M.A. Rector of St. Mary ~le- Bow. Second edition, 
with the Appendix conliderably enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo. il. 

N. B. Trie Appendix may be had feparate, to complete the 
firft edition, 4s. 

Walker, Sermons, on practical Subjects, by Robert Walker, 
late one of the Mrnifiers of the High Church of Edinburgh j 
with a Character of the Author, by Hugh Bl,air, D.D. A 
new edition. 4 vols. 8vo. il. 4s. 

Wells. Difcourfes, &c. on feveral Subjects, by the late Chris, 
top h e r Wells, B.D. Rector of Remenham, Berks, 2 vols* 
8vo. 16s. 

Whitaker, Family Sermons, by the Rev.E.W. Whitaker, Rector 
of St. Mildred's and All Saints, Canterbury. Second edition. 
3 vols. 8vo. 1 1. is. 

■ Eight Sermons on Education, by the fame Author. 8vo. 4s. 

W^hitaker. Six Difcourfes on 2 Theff. ii. 11. wherein the Divine 
Conduct is traced, from the Time of Adam to the prefent DiL 
penfation of Grace we live under, &c. By the late J, Whita, 
ker, M.A. Vicar of Penbury, in Kent. 8vo. 5s. 

Wilson. Thirty-three Sermons, feleded from the Works of the 
Right Rev. Thomas Wilson, D.D. late Bifhop of Sodor and 
Man. 2 vols. i2ino. 6s. 

Wilson. Sermons on feveral Subjects, by the Rev. H, B. Wilson, 
M. A. one of the Matters of Merchant Taylors School. 8vo, 
10s. 6d. 

Woollcombe. Sermons, on various Subjects, by the Rev. Wil- 
liam Woollcombe, M.A, late Prebendary of Exeter. 8yq. 
ios. 6d, 



THEOLOGICAL WORKS, 

Printed for, and fold by F. C. and J. Rivington. 

Abbadie. The Accomplishment of Prophecy, in the Character 
and Conduct of Jefus Chrift. By James Abbadie, D. D. 
formerly Dean of Killaloe. nmo, 4s. 

Addison. The Evidences of the Chriftian Religion, by the Right 
Hon. Joseph Addison. With the Notes of the learned Ga- 
briel Seigneu.y de Correvon; tranilated into Engliih, by 
the Rev. Richard Purdy, D. D. 8vo. ios. 6d. 

Bell. An Enquiry into the Divine Millions of John the Baptift, 
and Jefus Chrift. By William Bell, D. D. Prebendary of 
St. Peter's, Weftminfter. Svo. New edition, ios. 6d. 

Brewster. Meditations for the Aged: by John Brewster # 
M.A. Rector of Boldon, &c. Durham. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

Meditations of a Reclufe, chiefly on religious fubjetts. By 

the, fame Author. 8vo. Third edition. 8s. 

Churchman's Remembrancer. Being a Collection of fcarce and 
valuable Tracts in defence of the Doctrine and Difcipline of the 
Church of England, Vol. I. containing Five Numbers. 8vo, 
ios. 6d. 

Clarke. A Paraphrafe on the four Evangelifts, with Critical Notes 

on the more difficult Paffages. By Samuel Clarke, D. D. 

late Rector of St. James's, Weftminfter. 1 vol. 8vo. 8s. 
Cruttwell. A Concordance of Parallels, collected from Bibles 

and Commentaries, in various languages, with the authorities 

to each ; by the late Rev, C. Cruttwell. 4to. il. is. 
Baubeny. A Guide to the Church, in feveral Difcourfes. By 

the Rev. Charles Daubeny, Archdeacon of Sarum. 2 vols, 

Svo. Second edition. 17s. 
* Vindicia? Ecclefiae Anglicanae ; an Anfwer to Mr. Overton's 

" True Churchmen afcertained." By the fame Author. 8vo % 

8s. 

Ecclesiastical and Univerfity Annual Regifter, for the year 
1800. 8vo. 15s. 

The fame for the year 1808. Svo. 15s. 

Faber. A DifTertation on the Prophecies, that hare been fulfilled, 
are now fulfilling, or will hereafter be fulfilled, relative to the 
great Period of 1260 years, &c. &c. By the Rev. Geor«b 
Stanley Faber, B. D. Rector of Redmarftiall, Durham* 
Fourth edition. 2 vols. 8vo. il. is. 

A General and connected view of the Prophecies, relative to 

the Converfion, Reftoration, Union, and Future Glory, of the 
Houfes of Judah and Ifrael, 8$c. &c. By the fame Author, 
Second edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 17s. 

A Diifertation on the Myfteries of the Cabiri, By fhe &me 

Author. 2 vols. 8vo. 16s. 

Gray. A Key $0 the Old Teftament and Apocrypha. By the 
Rev. Robert Gray, D. D. Prebendary of Durham. Fifth 
edition, Svo, 9s. H.a&£, 



&ooks printed for F. C. and J. RiviNGToft. 



Mare. A Treatise on the Conduct of God to the Human Specie^' 
and on the Divine MiffiOn of Jefus Chrift. By the late Rev. J; 
Hare, A. M. Rector'of Coin St. Dcnys, Gloucefterftrire, and 
Vicar of Stratton St. Margaret, Wilts. Second edition. 8vo.- 
10s. 6d. 

An Effay on the neceffity of Revealed Religion. By the' 

fame Author, izmo. Third edition. 2s. 6d. 

— — An Effay on the Unreaibnablenefs of Scepticifrm £y the' 
fame Author. Handfomely printed, izmo. 6s. 

Hooker. Ah Analyfis of Hooker's Eight Books of Eccle Gallic a 1 
Polity. By the Rev. J. Collinson, M. A. Rector of Gatef- 
head, Durham. 8vo. ios. 6d, 

Horne. Efiays and Thoughts on various fubjects : with Nine Pa- 
pers from the Olia Podrida, and Poems. By the Right Rev, 
George Horne-, D.D. late Lord Bifhop of Norwich. i2mo. 

■ 5 S< . . • , - " - : \ ■■ ■ ' 

Kett. Hiftory the Interpreter of Prophecy ; or a View of the 
Scriptural Prophecies and their Accomplishment in the part and 
prefent Occurrences of the World ; with Conjectures respecting: 
their future completion. By the Rev. Henry Kett, M. A. 
Fifth edition, with additional notes. 2 vols. 8vo. 1'4-s. 

Le Mesurier. The Doctrine of the Eucharift confidered, as main- 
tained by the Church of Rome and the Church of England ft 
fpectively. By the Rev. Thomas Le Mesurier, M. A. 
Rector of Newnton Longvilk, Bucks. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Mi chilis. An Introduction to the New Teftament, by J. D. 
M 1 c h m l i s ; translated from the German by Her b«e r t f>I a rs h, 
DID. F. R. S. Margaret Profeffor of Divinity at Cambridge* 
6 vols, 8vo. 2I. 8s. or on Royal Paper gl. 3s* 

Revival of the Roman and Greek Empires : being Obfervations on 
Daniel's Metallick Image. 2 vols. 8vo. 14s. 

Scholar armed (The) againft the Errors of the Time ; or a Col- 
lection of Tracts on the Principles and Evidences of Chriftianity. 
Second edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 1 6s. 

Trimmer. A Help to the Unlearned in the Study of the \to\y 
Scriptures : being an attempt to explain the Bible in a familiar 
way, adapted to common apprehenlions. By Mrs. Trimmer,- 
Second edition. Svo. 12s. 

Wilson. Letters on the Truth, and certainty of Natural and Re- 
vealed Religion, intended as an Introduction to Bifhop Butler's 
Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed. By the Rev. 
Joseph Wilson, A.B. i2mo. 4s. 6d, 

Wix. Scriptural Illuftrations o-f the 39 Articles of the Church of 
England. By Samuel W ix, A. M. Vicar of St. Bartholomew 
the Lefs. 8vo. 8s. 

Wordsworth. Ecclefiaftical Biography : or Lives of eminent 
Men, connected with the Hiftory of Religion in England ; from 
the commencement of the Reformation to' the Revolution; fe- 
lefted and illuftrated with Notes. By Christopher Words- 
worth, M. A, Dean and Rcdor of Booking. G vo&, Svo. 3I. 1 5s* 



July 1811. 
LATELY PUBLISHED, 

Bij F. C. and J. IUVINGTON, 

No. 62, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD. 

VISCOUNT VALENTIA'S TRAVELS, Octavo Edi- 
tion. Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red 
Sea, Abyffinia, and Egypt, in the Years 1803, 1804, 1805, 
and 1806. By George, Viscount Valentia, 3 vols. 
8vo. and a fourth in 4to. containing all the Plates givsn in 
the /Lto Edition. 4I. 10s. A few copies remain of the 4to 
Edition, price 9I. 9s. bds. 

MISS MITFORD'S NEW POEM. Chriitina, the Maid of 
the South Seas, a Poem. By Mary Russell Mitford. 
Elegantly printed in 1 Vol. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

CLAPHAM. Sermons, felected and abridged, chiefly from 
Minor Authors, adapted to the Saints Days, Feftivals, Fails, 
&c. and to general Occafions, &c. &c. For the Ufe of Fa. 
milies. Volume 3d. By the Rev. Samuel Clapham, 

A. M. Vicar of Chrift Church, Hants, &c. &c. 8vo. 13s. 
PENNINGTON. Redemption; or a View of the Rife 

and Progrefs of the Chriftian Religion, from the Fall of 
Adam, to its complete Eftablifliment, under Conftantino* 
By the Rev. Montague Pennington, M. A. Vicar of 
Northbourn, Kent. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

PLUMPTRE. Letters to John Aikin, M. D. on his Vo- 
lume of Vocal Poetry : and on his Effays on Song-Writing. 
To which are added, a Collection of Songs, revifed and al- 
tered by the Editor ; with fome original Songs. By James 
Plumptre, B. D. Fellow of Clare-Hall, Cambridge. 
Elegantly printed in one large Volume. 1 zmo. 9s. 

THE TRIUMPHS of RELIGION, a facred Poem ; in four 
Parts. Foolscap, 8vo. 7s. 

FABER. A Differtation on the Prophecy contained in Da- 
niel, Chap. ix. Ver. 24 to 27, ufually denominated the 
Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. By the Rev. G. S. Faber, 

B. D. Rector of Redmarmall, Durham. 8vo. 12s. 
^HALES. A new Analyfis of Chronology ; in which an at- 
tempt is made to explain the Hiftory and Antiquities of the 
Nations recorded in the Scriptures, together with the Pro- 
phecies relating to them, on Principles tending to remove 
the Imperfection and Difcordance of preceding Syftems of 
Chronology. By William Hales, D. D. Rector of Kil- 
iefandra, and formerly Fellow of Trinity College, and Pro- 
leffor of Oriental Languages, in the Univerlky of Dublin. 
Volume 1 st. 4to. illaft rated with lix Copper-plates. 2I. 2s. 

* The 2d Volume will fpeedily appear, 



THE ECCLESIASTICAL AND UNIVERSITY AN- 
NUAL REGISTER, for the Year 1810. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

THE POETICAL REGISTER, and Repository of Fugitive 
Poetry, for the Years 1806 and 1807; containing Original 
Poetry, Fugitive Poetry, and Critical Characters of One 
Hundred and Sixty Poetic -and Dramatic Works, publiflied 
in the courfe of the two Years. 8vo. 12s. 

* Another Volume, for the Years 1808 and 1809, is in the 
Prefs, and will be fpeedily publifhed. 

BISHOP TAYLOR. Prayers, collected from the feveral 
Writings of Jeremy Taylor, Bifhop of Down and Connor, 
adapted to the Family, the Clofet, the Sacrament, &c. Sec. 
By the Rev. Samxtel Clapham, M. A. Vicar of Chrift 
Church, Hants. 8vo 9s. 

THE ANNUAL REGISTER; or, a View of the Hiftory, 
Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1795. In one large 
Volume, 8vo. 18s. 

* # * In this Volume, befide other interefting Matter, will be 
found a more complete Account than has hitherto been given 
in the Englifh Language, of the Polifh Hiftory, from the 
Period of the Ruffian Invafion, in 1792, to the Extinction 
of Poland, as an Independent State, in the Year 1795. 

%* The Volumes, for the Years 1 796 and 1 804, are in the Prefs, 
arid will fpeedily appear. 

HARPUR. An EiTay on the Principles of Philofophical 
Criticifm, applied to Poetry. By Joseph Harpur, L.L.D. 
of Trinity College, Oxford. 4to. iK is. 

PENNING TON. Continental Excurfions ; or Tours into 
France, Switzerland, and Germany, in 1782, 1787, 1789. 
By the Rev. Thomas Pennington, M. A. Rector of 
Thorley, Herts. 2 vols. 8vo. 15s. 

DE LUC. An Elementary Treatife on Geology : determining 
fundamental Points in that Science, By J. A. De Luc, 
F. R.S. 8vo. 12?. 

DE LUC. Geological Travels. By J. A. De Luc, F. R. S, 
Vol. I. Containing, Travels in the North of Europe, with 
Obfervations on fome Parts of the Coafts of the Baltic, and 
the North Sea. 8vo. Price J2s. 

N. B. The fecond and third Volumes, containing Travels in 
England, will fpeedily appear. 

STABBACK. The Four Gofpels, and Acts of the Apof- 
tles, ill uft rated by Maps, and a Genealogical Table of the 
Family of Herod; with Annotations, Critical, Explanatory, 
and Practical, chiefly felected from the molt able Commen- 
tators, and accompanied with Reflections. By Thomas 
Stab back, A. B. late of Oriel College, Oxford ; Vicar of 
Cubert, and Lecturer of Helflon, in the County of CormvalL 
% vols. 8vp. lU is. 



IDOJVOFAJY'S 
ILLUSTRATIONS 

OF 

BRITISH NATURAL HISTORIC 

WITH COLOURED PLATES. 

BRITISH INSECTS. The Natural Hiftory of Britifh Infers ^ 
explaining them in their feveral States, with the Periods of 
their Transformations, their Food, Economy, &c. toge- 
ther with the Hiftory of fuch minute Infects as require 
Inveftigation by the Microfcope. The whole illuftrated by 
elegantly coloured Figures, deftgned and executed from living 
Specimens. By E. Donovan, F. L, S. 15 Vols. RoyaJ 
8vo. 23I. 5s. 

%* For the Accommodation of Purchafers, this Work may- 
be had, in fingle Volumes, at il. us. each. 

BRITISH BIRDS. The Natural Hiftory of Britim Birds ; or 
a Selection of the moft raic, beautiful, and interefting Birds 
which inhabit this Country : the Defcriptions from the 
Syftema Naturae of Linnsus ; with general Obfervations, 
either original, or collected from the lateft and moft 
efteemed Englifh Ornithologifts $ and embellifned with 124 
Figures, drawn, engraved, and elegantly coloured from the 
original Specimens. By the fame. 5 Vols. Royal 8vo. 9I. 
%* The Volumes may be purchafed {mgly at il. iq~s. each. 

BRITISH FISHES. The Natural Hiftory of Britim Times, 
including fcientific and general Defcriptions of the moft 
interefting Species, and an extenfive Selection of accurately 
finiftied coloured Plates : taken entirely from original Draw- 
ings, purpofely made from the Specimens in a recent State, 
and for the moft part whilft living. By the fame. 5 Vols. 
Royal 8vo t 7I. 15s. or any Volume feparate at iL us. 

BRITISH SHELLS. The Natural Hiftory of Britim Shells, 
including Figures and Defcriptions of all the Species hi- 
therto difcovered in Great Britain, fyftematically arranged 
in the Linnaean Manner, with fcientific and general Obfer- 
vations on each. The Plates elegantly coloured. By the 
fame. 5 Vols. Royal 8vo. 7I. 15s. or any Volume finely 
at il. us. 

ALSO, 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING AND PRESERV- 
ING various Subjects of Natural Hiftory ; as Quadrupeds, 
Birds, Reptiles, Fifties, Shells, Corals, Plants, &c. with 
a Treatife on the Management of Infects in their feveral 
States ; felected from the beft Authorities. By the fame* 
Svo» Second Edition, 4s, 6d, 



Donovans lllilftratiom of Foreign Natural Hifibryi with 
coloured Plates. 

CHINESE INSECTS. An Epitome of the Natural Hiftory of 
the Infedts of China : comprifing Figures and Defcriptions of 
upwards of i oo new, lingular, and beautiful Species ; together 
with fome that are of Importance in Medicine, Domeftic 
Economy, Sec. The Figures are accurately drawn, en- 
graved, and elegantly coloured, from Specimens of the 
Infects : The Defcriptions are arranged according to the 
Syftem of Linnaeus ; with References to the Writings of 
Fabricius, and other fyftematic Authors. By E. Donovan, 
F. L.S. Elegantly printed in one Volume Royal 4to. 61. 6s. 

INSECTS OF INDIA. An Epitome of the Natural Hiftory 
of the Infefts of India, and the I Hands in the Indian Seas : 
comprifing upwards of 250 Figures and Defcriptions of the 
moft fingular and beautiful Species, feletfted chiefly from 
thofe recently difcovered, and which have not appeared in 
the Works of any preceding Author. The Plates are ele- 
gantly coloured, and the Defcriptions after the Linnasan 
and Fabrician Manner. By the fame. Royal 410. 61. 6s. 

INSECTS OF NEW HOLLAND, Sec. An Epitome of the 
Infects of New Holland, New Zealand, New Guinea,, 
Otaheite, and other Iflands in the Indian, Southern, and 
Pacific Oceans : including the Figures and Defcriptions of 
•153 Species of the more fplendid, beautiful and interesting 
Infects, hitherto difcovered in thofe Countries, and which 
for the moft Part have not appeared in the Works of any 
preceding Author. The Plates are elegantly coloured, and 
the Defcriptions after the Linnaean and Fabrician Manner, 
~By the fame. Royal 4to. 61. 6s. 

ALSO, 

DESCRIPTIVE EXCURSIONS THROUGH SOUTH 
WALES, and MONMOUTHSHIRE, in the Year 1S04, 
and the four preceding Summers. Embellilhed with 31 
Plates of Views, Antiquities, &c. By the fame. 2 Vols. 
8vo. 21. 2s. Boards. 
* # * A felecl Number of Copies have the Plates worked off in 
Colours, and finely tinted in Imitatioij of the original 
Drawings, £rice in Boards 3I. 10s. 



PRINTED FOR AND SOLD BY F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, 
no. 62, st. Paul's church-yard; 
By JUlw and Gilbert, St. John's Suuaxe, Loudon 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



